News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!

Friday, July 19, 2013

DETROIT HAS FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, NBC HINTS CHICAGO MAY FACE SIMILAR PERILOUS TIMES

A long time victim of the New World Order of "globalization," as well as many other factors: crime, out-sourcing of local employment, excessive college tuition rates, and declining local population in a huge metropolitan region still called by the name of the core city, Detroit, things have come to a local head. Kevyn Orr, the Emergency Financial Manager appointed by Michigan's governor electronically filed for bankruptcy at 4:01 p.m. this afternoon. Many people have panned Detroit, but I still love the city. The more I traveled, which was particularly heavy throughout the 1980s and somewhat in the 1990's and years 2000-2010, the more I appreciated our beautiful region. We are blessed with the Great Lakes, abundant crops, proximity to Canada, many fine believing Christians, and we have had relative racial peace since the Detroit riots which plagued this town in 1967 and sporadically for a few years thereafter.

NBC reported on this bankruptcy tonight and gave broad hints on the 6:30 evening news that Chicago may be facing similar crises.

It was Detroit where I discovered the New Age Movement's existence and watched powerful manifestations of it in such spectacles as Benjamin Creme speaking at the Unity Center for Holistic Living (formerly the very large Palmer Park Christian Science Church) on November 4, 1981. A few weeks thereafter David Spangler spoke at University of Michigan expense to a fairly large crowd there. I witnessed both events.

Suburban Detroit (Ferndale, Michigan) was the home of the very large Mayflower Bookstore. It was there and at Middle Earth Books in Sterling Heights, Michigan as well as the Michigan Metaphysical Society also in Berkley where I collected much of the documentation that was used in THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW released by Huntington House in 1983.

But, it was also Detroit where prominent academics such as Dr. Wesley Gould and others at Wayne State University gave encouragement and support to my research and work during the crucial incubator days of it. It was Detroit where prominent members of the Detroit City Council such as Marianne Mahaffey vouched for my credibility. It was the DETROIT FREE PRESS that did a page and a half picture story on my work that helped turn the tide and woke people to the reality of the New Age Movement.

I have deep affection for this town. It was a black female evangelist who is still living but quite elderly, Missionary Hattie Humphrey, who first summoned me to speak about the topic after I talked to her about my research on a political boat ride for our then mutual friend, Detroit City Clerk Jim Bradley. Mr. Bradley left our world in 1997.

I had crucial support from Detroiters. I was invited to present my research in 1982, even prior to the newspaper story, to the combined staffs of three members of the Detroit City Council: Marianne Mahaffey, Nicholas Hood, and John People.

I was not raised in Detroit. I grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana and graduated from high school in Roanoke, Indiana. When I became a Detroiter in late 1965, for the first time I had access to affordable institutions of higher learning that eventually afforded me the opportunity to become an attorney -- a remote, if not impossible dream, in my original home town.

Detroit is my adopted city. It has received much bad press from many. It is a BEAUTIFUL CITY and one well worth visiting. Pray for our region. It is one where much good and much evil have seen collision, but I do believe God has had his merciful hand on it.

I'm sorry I have posted so little the past few weeks. I'm still writing and have been digesting an intensive review of my library and have been somewhat busier as a lawyer recently.

Stay tuned! There will be more and that book is definitely in the hopper.

I started showing you in my last post how to look at New Age networks. http://www.servicegrowth.net/index.php?cat=33 Now that's a rather bland website. One looking at it doesn't see a strong dynamic. Purple, blue, white, stars in the skies. All is quiet.

On the left there is a list of links. I chose Groups and it took me to roughly 99 different groups, each of which have a listing. Many of the times are very familiar to those who understand the New Age networks. Keep in mind that is only one of the links on the left.

I was born at the Henry Ford Hospital and lived in and outside Detroit until our family moved to California when I was still in High School.

I have many, many fond memories growing up in Detroit - it was truly the industrial center of the world leading the world in automotive and other key technologies. During those years, it had the highest per-family average income of any city in the U.S.

It's so sad to see what's happened to the once incredibly beautiful city. I hope they don't sell off the Detroit Institute of Art or Belle Isle. I remember laying on the grass on the Isle while listening without charge to the Detroit Symphony during those warm summer evenings.

But later, after moving to California, Constance, it was your presentation on your newly released book Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, at the San Jose Convention Center, that opened my eyes to the New Age - I still have and use that copy of the book I purchased that day.

I hope the legal maneuvers help the city move forward without hurting it's residents even more.

Good to hear from you and know that you too knew our beautiful Detroit, Michigan. San Jose, California! I remember those two evenings well. Do you remember Jim Jones' adopted daughter speaking during the question and answer period? She had once been interviewed on Detroit's WXYZ station by Mark Scott and had confirmed my research concerning Jim Jones as consistent with her experiences and observations. I got to know Bonnie Malamud (her married name) along with her minister father who had been pressured by Jim Jones to let him adopt Bonnie as part of his "Rainbow Family."

This is a very active website. I can hardly keep up with it. You get get on her mailing list. Reason I'm sending this is in response to the Detroit piece. Following the political shenanigans should keep us mentally busy. http://www.areweawareyet.com/31844/mich-judge-rules-detroit-bankruptcy-unconstitutional-claims-it-fails-to-honor-president-obama/

Via The Blaze

A Michigan judge ruled Friday that Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s Detroit bankruptcy filing is a violation of the state’s constitution and that it fails to “honor” President Barack Obama who “took (Detroit’s auto companies) out of bankruptcy.”

County Circuit Judge Rosemary Aquilina said she hopes Gov. Snyder “reads certain sections of the (Michigan) constitution and reconsiders his actions.”

“I have some very serious concerns because there was this rush to bankruptcy court that didn’t have to occur and shouldn’t have occurred,” Aquilina said.

“Plaintiffs shouldn’t have been blindsided,” and “this process shouldn’t have been ignored.”

Kevyn Orr, Detroit’s state-appointed emergency manager, filed for Chapter 9 protection on Thursday after two municipal pension funds moved to sue him in an attempt to protect retiree benefits.

I hope this comment doesn't just disappear into the night. Every serious person needs to know that what is going on is not just normal give and take in American politics. Low information voters didn't just happen. Responses from the black community are not just the result of Sharpton and Jackson blathering. For the last 60 years in particular we all have been studied like mice in cages. Planning has taken place to get a conditioned planned in advance response from us. This has not only happened to get us to buy products, but as a result of government studies done through academic think tanks on an international scale. The kind of conditioning I am talking about takes place on the group level rather than on a one on one level.

Some individuals have been subject to more conditioning than others. Because it was assumed that certain types of individuals would be given access to more power, through schools they were subject to more conditioning. What they believe is not the result of intellectual analysis, but rather planned emotional responses to certain kinds of stimuli. Suburban Joe and Jane do not spent their time with academic journals or NPR. They are less conditioned as a result. All Black citizens are not stupid. Through the entertainment media a very high percentage have been conditioned to respond in a certain way.

There is no way I can shorten what I am saying. Breaking individuals away from a conditioned line of thinking is like breaking them away from cult programming. Cult programming is planned, step by step until a person cannot see any other way of viewing what is around him. If I can encourage only two or three people who read the seriously researched academic book by B. K. Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind and they only read Chapter 10 titled Scientific Coercion and the Engineering of Consent in this 605 trade paperback, they will learn more about what is going on than can be found in 500 Facebook threads, no matter now well meaning the threads are. Her other books are not as detailed as this one, so substitution is not advised. If you can't afford it, get it through interlibrary loan.

Constance, as you undoubtedly know, I not only knew of the link but after so many years I clearly know how to analyze the material. The hard part is always trying to make everything less complex for many who are short on time or who are easily distracted. I truly appreciate the compliment.

10:44 a.m. You are correct. We need her help so desperately. At first, I thought the 5:23's post was enough to get me to want to investigate but oh, I don't know... maybe I really need Christine to kick me in the pants to get me motivated... ;) (and grab someone else's credit too--she loves riding other people's sails)Where was Constance's Cumbey's blog before she came to rescue it?

"An editorial in the Washington Times shocked a many readers last week when it was revealed that the Pentagon is hawking an online course entitled “Power and Privilege,” compliments of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a taxpayer-funded entity. The curricular theme, according to the editorial, was that “’the American dream’ is simply a manufactured ideology used to keep the underclass in its place; [that it] is part of the ‘myth of meritocracy’.”

In other words, the course is the same recycled Marxist, liberation theology we’ve heard since the Weathermen and original Black Panther Party of the 1960s and 70s. "http://www.newswithviews.com/Eakman/beverly162.htm

Actually, that statement sounds less Marxist than feudalist semi fascist. Of course, the rest of the course statements might prove me wrong on this. But if stuck in the left right paradigm (for lack of a better word), one can easily miss this.

meritocracy assumes that the best will rise to the top, without covert help from a network, on their merits. (and conversely, that the people in charge in politics, society, and business, are ipso facto the best.)

This means rising in class, which is destabilizing to feudalism. One writer decades ago noticed a tendency for generations to fall in class in USA defined as income etc.

So this line of instruction would seem to work against competition (which is as much a fascist as a communist line of talk) and social mobility.

Also, thought it might start some thinking along lines disruptive to the status quo if they wonder why things are different from the experience of their grandparents, it would in general get them to accept the present worsening condition.

As Constance pointed out many times in the past, New Age leaders say they have something for everyone. Does this mean they can meld science and New Age? The answer is yes. The material is so voluminous that I can only point you in that direction, but you will have to scan on your own if you are so inclined.

Starting with http://www.servicegrowth.net/index.php?cat=33 we move on to http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/index.htm where we learn that the THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA DEPT OF ANESTHESIOLOGY has had a program since 1994 called The Biennial Tucson Conference since 1994. Toward a Science of Consciousness under the direction of theCenter for Consciousness Studies

Held annually since 1994, the conference is organized by the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, and alternates yearly between Tucson, Arizona and various locations around the world. An estimated 700-800 scientists, philosophers, psychologists, experientialists, artistsand students from over 60 countries are due to take part. An annual TSC is held overseas in cooperation with partner organizations and institutions - cities included: Stockholm, Hong Kong, Salzburg, Budapest, Tokyo, Naples, Elsinore."

Do you see how New Age ideas infiltrate what most would see as a logical and cold approach to understanding the human mind? No one needs to hold a crystal and meditate to study these ideas.

Sounds like New Agers in the anesthesiology dept. (any fool of any idiot persuasion can master skills and pass tests and get employed at anything remember that) shaped the course. Some of those things are relevant to pain issues, but a lot of them are not.

Sure, in some states of mind you are more pain resistant. Some can schiz out and feel nothing. Is that something to encourage?

A long time ago, looking into the face of a flaky woman into a kind of New Age thing (which eventually led her to be present at a human sacrifice according to an informant of mine) I realized that what the east calls illumination is recognized by the west as various forms of schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Of course having people who argue that being nuts is just fine don't help. (granted that going nuts in response to a nutty environment may reflect enough sanity to reject it, but not enough courage to fuly reject the individuals and even escape. A study on people who had abusive, dysfunctional, nutty or alcoholic families, found that the ones who did best were the ones who distanced themselves the most, both emotionally and physically, from the problem parents. Others who didn't distance themselves enough, but remained sitting on the fence in ambivalence, suffered the most and were most obviously dysfunctional. I guess the ones who caved in altogether became paralyzed so to speak. In one of the hellraiser stories, one of the features hell is described as having is ambivalence of an extreme, tearing sort.)

The gal eventually married a Hells Angels bigwig, maybe to feel safer from her old friends.

Information source two:"Sounds like New Agers in the anesthesiology dept. (any fool of any idiot persuasion can master skills and pass tests and get employed at anything remember that) shaped the course."

Granted freedom of speech and anyone can post here planning, do evaluate carefully what is presented, do your own research, and understand the long term results of New Age networking.

Part 1Many comments back I suggested readers here try and get a copy of Cloning of the American Mind by Eakman. Apparently there has been enough demand for her book so that she wrote, "The Cloning book will be both a reprint and an update. The original Part IV has been woven into a separate book, so the coming text of Cloning will therefore be shorter. A big NY publishing house has recently picked up a vastly expanded Part IV, which was formerly called How To Counter Group Manipulation, from which I do seminars. It which is really not lengthy either, since even with the expansion it about 200 pgs. But it does have self-tests and practice sessions."

The information in that book has much to do with New Age networking and infiltration as written about in a post above. Constance's valuable input looks at what is going on through a different lens. In the meantime, individuals should not wait until a new book comes out to understand what is happening. Here is the kind of information that can be found in the book Cloning Of The American Mind.

"With the foregoing in mind, it is time to examine the nuts and bolts of opinion molding...

"Beginning in 1932, a psychiatrist and British military officer by the name of John Rawlings Rees headed England's famous Tavistock Clinic, an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology. Founded in 1920 and alive and well in London today. In 1945, the Clinic drew the attention of Rockefeller Foundation Medical Director Alan Gregg, who toured various institutions that had been involved in wartime medicine to se if any would be willing to commit to an extension of the enemy-analysis research performed by the army in social psychiatry and apply it to civilian populations.

"Tavistock was willing and able. A subsequent grant from the Rockefeller Foundation resulted in a redirected Tavistock, The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations founded in 1947 and still headquartered at the same address in London as the Tavistock Institute. That year Tavistock joined with Kurt Lewin's Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan, USA, and began publication of the international journal, Human Relations, which provides an illuminating historical record of improvements in "thought control" and "thought reform" strategies over the years. It was primarily Rees (under the influence of Lewin) who shaped the Tavistock organization and developed what is known as the "Tavistock Method" of mass psychological control -- the deliberate inducement of neurosis. It was Rees who coined the term "psychologically controlled environment" (which we will learn to counteract in Part IV) to refer to the manipulation of a population group by the mass media. Rees claimed it was possible to turn an adult population into the emotional equivalent of neurotic children.

"As indicated, a key force behind the Tavistock Method was Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist who, although not an official member of the Frankfurt School, was a close friend of one of its founders, a Comintern agent and leading member of the German Communist Party named Karl Korsch. Lewin was trained in Wundtian theory at the Psychology Institute at Berlin University, and in the 1920s began collaborating with Soviet psychologists, in particular the infamous Alexander R. Luria, who would later develop a process called "Artificial Disorganization of Behavior" aimed at creating mass social chaos. Luria wrote about the work of Lewin in his 1932 book The Nature of Human Conflicts: A Study of the Experimental Disorganization and Control of Human Behavior. Luria described the specific method of inducing an "artificial disruption" of the psyche (note the term "affect" below would be worded "affective domain" in today's English translation,,,,

"Pavlov found that the subject could actually be "modified" to the point where he hated a life he once cherished and espoused ideals he once would not have tolerated..."

My comment: Study of the control of the minds of people has been going on a long time and has become quite sophisticated in its applications.

Alan Vera posted this on Facebook. I don't know the source, but it is great subtle humor about Detroit's situation.

Detroit Residents Stunned!Police in Detroit announced the discovery of an arms cache of 200 semi-automatic rifles with 25,000 rounds of ammunition, 200 pounds of heroin, 5 million in forged US banknotes and 25 trafficked Latino prostitutes -- all in a semi-detached house behind the Public Library on Woodward Ave.

Local residents were stunned, and a community spokesman said: "We're all shocked; we never knew we had a library."

"Information source two:"Sounds like New Agers in the anesthesiology dept. (any fool of any idiot persuasion can master skills and pass tests and get employed at anything remember that) shaped the course.""

"and understand the long term results of New Age networking."

Thank you for making my point.

People of the New Age idiot persuasion have been moving into place (by networking and by bringing their ideas with them when they get the jobs by their skill sets) and shaping education, institutions, politics, etc. etc.at all levels.

Christine only you would consider that a point was made for you. It's OK dear. The little bird who pops out of the clock on the hour has been broken for a while and so we need and appreciate your reminders about the world around us. It would always say Cuckoo Cuckoo in a delightfully charming way. You pop out so regularly in the same way. I am not suggesting in any way way that you have something in common the with the real life bird after which the cuckoo clock bird is named even though some might see a parallel.

thank you for making my point is a sarcasm, usually directed at someone who thinks they have refuted you, when they in fact present stuff that supports you or is part of what you were trying to get across. only you would miss the point.

now I am ignoring you again. go ahead and babble on and make yourself look petty and stupid. If you were the one posting the links and info earlier, kudos for finally contributing something. which I hope the links I then posted help others pursue.

Detroit is home to the largest Masonic temple in the USA,Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer who received an award from the NAZI's ...watch on you tube...and he brought in the Allah goddess worshipers because they also hated the Jews. Detroit has a giant fist statue downtown, which is similar to the upright Baal worship stance of the statures Abraham destroyed. Dearborn will be the first no go shariah law zone in the USA and Chicago will be next. Aloha Snack bar.

and so do I. A much ignored issue is the infiltration of these ideas into institution and professions that us aging baby boomers assume are full of conservative (in the sense of not quick to jump on crazy bandwagons) and even materialism minded scientific and somewhat semi Christian biassed people, principles and so forth.

This is not the case.

The problem with these energy and consciousness things, especially in an era of short attention span and irritation at having to take time to dig and discern, is that while they contain some truth, they function as conveyorbelts to two things.

1. a bunch of other stuff we all know too well to detail here. The assumption is, if some small part of it works the whole thing is true.

e.g., Transcendental Meditation. Sure, you can destress and stuff like that. That doesn't mean the theology back of the system is true, or that all the kinds of "peace" available are necessarily good. A corpse is pretty damn peaceful last time I looked. Or ought to be. (zombie warning. just joking.)

Scientology emeter is just a crude lie detector. Now, OF COURSE if you have such a device on you, it is harder for you to duck issues and easier to probe quicker than with the usual psychiatric interviews.

Impressed with the results people fall for the hard sell and sign up for the rest of it which is nonsensical stuff and a mindset of total obedience to Scientology and adoration towards their disreputable founder.

2. THE VERY MENTAL STATE OF AWE AND WONDER is dubious in itself. Almost religious. and precisely this is encouraged by people who go on and on about the wonders of ancient civilizations and the glory of Egypt (a bunch of falling down ruins which would be slated for demolition if modern and only valuable for historical reasons) and ufos and "consciousness."

So you get people all awestruck about the miracles of the human body and whatnot, and keep throwing the words consciousness and energy around.

They get online or in a bookstore, looking for these key words.

Do they find the few useful proven stuff? yeah, maybe. Mostly they find themselves on a New Age binge with an illusion of scientific proof and a sense of superiority because they are on a track that the old fogies reject. Except it seems that these ideas are becoming mainstream. Pretty soon they are compromising Christianity or even starting from a non religious mindset into a religion of science that, unlike earlier materialistic de facto religion of science now has a kick to it, and requires no discipline whatsoever, or any devotion to a concept of objective reality and truth.

It may even DENOUNCE the idea of objective reality and "truth" becomes whatever seems true to you.

Now, these lectures are being given to various medical etc. professionals and students, and they are going to infect their patients they chat with with such ideas.

In regards to the recent comments about controlling and influencing the Western mind and culture....

I've always deemed it important to correctly assign blame to whom blame should be assigned. Constance and others here have done a great job on documenting the infiltration of traditional Judeo-Christian thought by New Age influences, but those can't be the only ones to have contributed to our demise.

I have tended to focus on the Communist influence and their plans to destroy the West. Investigating how those plans and the plans of the Theosophists and other New Age agents of influence intermingle and reinforce each other can be an interesting pursuit. At times they can even be found in opposition to each other.

The studying of the American mindset, and the conditioning referred to by anon. 5:23am, I believe, was in large part performed by Communist players and stooges and fellow travelers. (I haven't checked out the book by Eakman yet, so I don't know to what she attributes that conditioning.)

A while ago I recommended a book by Diana West called "American Betrayal". Upon reading it, I can say with confidence that you will not view 20th-century history the same. The level of penetration by Soviet agents during WW2 and the prewar years is almost unbelievable. I still highly recommend it.

I believe the cause of much of what ails the West now can be directly attributed to Communist influence. The founding fathers of this country understood human nature very well, and created a system of government that would hold our darker side in check. The Soviets studied and understood human nature very well also (and spend lots of time studying Americans in particular), but used that knowledge to enhance the effects of our darker side through education, culture, etc, so as to hasten our "self"-destruction.

They erred in thinking that they could overcome that dark side by creating a new Soviet Man.

The "vacuum" that has been created by emptying the Western mind of anything foundational and permanent is more than ready to be filled by New Age deception. If that doesn't scare you a just a little bit, it should.

While communism played a role, there has to be something more. Sure, they might have wanted to use any and all possible means to make us weak and vacillating, and such a mindset would do this. Also, being without morals regarding means, they (and the US) did not hesitate to use all manner of perverts and immoral people in govt. and in influence, supplying them whatever they wanted and filming and having means of blackmail. This of course meant leaving immoral people in power and influence who had their own agendas.

This kind of all truth is relative thinking, however, goes back to the early days and Europe because of philosophers and is implicit in masonic teaching.

Communism though it might undermine patriotism or loyalty to accepted ideas by pushing relativism, was hardly itself relativistic. It had a very hardline standard of right and wrong and objective reality, but not one we would officially at least agree with.

The Hegelian Dialectic and the onward evolution of humanity with the proletariat the advance guard all very precise and mechanistic stuff. Taught as absolute objective scientific reality.

Immorality and alcoholism etc. was condemned as left over bourgeois and elitist hypocrisies. At home at least.

So it is complicated. I think that both Marko's point of view and those of others here and elsewhere needs to be combined to get the entire picture.

Marco, you are right in one aspect. However go back to the Webb material on the beginnings of the socialist movement. You will see that there were two branches developed at the same time, the socialist and the communist. Both were considered experimental to see which would work best. A while back I gave a link to a paper showing how the occultists worked with the communists to bring about the Russian revolution. Political change has been studied in detail by the academics while cultural change has not. Even recently academics were writing how New Age was some kind of new religion. Almost no work has been done showing the political side of the New Age movement in spite of easy access to Mark Satin's early material. Again, Constance's work showing the political connections was groundbreaking though it has been ignored by the general academic community.

I am skeptical also. there is some argument that "allah" was the name of a moon goddess, and more evidence that the kaaba stone is connected to this. But "elah" is a semitic word for God or The God. It is in use by syriac speaking nestorian Christians and other Arab Christians.

The preservation of a pagan idol, however, is definitely an indicator something was very wrong with Mohammed's claims. Early on he thought he might be possessed.

there must have been something wrong with the minds of the people making the model penal code to begin with. Because﻿ if there is all this evidence Kinsey was presenting about sexuality of infants and sexual conduct of adults and so forth, the proper reaction would be to crack down on the growing immorality, protect the seduceable child more, and work on preventing moral corruption rather than loosening things.

Christine, your comments are incredibly simplistic. Understanding your postings is like understanding a rubics cube. It may be that you want to be the wonder of the moment for information. It may be that researching things gets too complicated and you can't handle the complications so you just tuck it under the label "stuff" one of your favorite words. Every time you post you set back research on New Age. It may be you are just there to make Constance look good with her more orderly information. That might be why she never challenges your inane comments. Then again, you just might be too brilliant for the general population to follow. Well in your own mind that is.

there is no need for a "female side of God," nor was any such being sought by arabs, and consider the patriarchal and sexist and violent Japanese their top deity was a sun goddess, you can't tell what people are like by what they worship.l

The whole idea of femininity and masculinity as some cosmic thing is part of the occultic notion of balanced forces in the universe and of a kind of "sacred sex" where each person embodies some deity or principle or something instead of just being themselves.

God as described in The Bible is both just and merciful, and made comparisons of Himself both to a warrior and to a hen covering her chicks with her wing feathers.

God is not androgynous, just all round competent.

Motherhood as being something other than fatherhood is mostly crap. Both should be strong and just and caring.

These women who talk about their late teen sons and daughters as their "children" make me sick. Usually this happens after the kid got in some trouble with the law for something violent. Probably there is a connection between the coddling mother viewing him or her as a "child" and the delinquent condition of the brat.

I believe the giant fist statue is supposed to be a memorial to deceased boxer Joe Lewis who brought much fame to the city. The Hockey arena is named after him as well. Detroit has its problems to be sure, but it sure has a much larger percentage of righteous folk than did Sodom & Gomorrah!

Just wondering why "anonymous" seems to blow so hot and so cold??? It seems like Constance just called for civility on the part of everybody. Not everybody can write as brilliantly as "anonymous" and so she should not eugenically expect everybody to pass her IQ test to be allowed to post on Constance's blog.

ALLAH is a concatenation of AL-ILLAH meaning "THE god"; the generic word for a god in Arabic is ILLAH. It is similar in Hebrew (ELOAH, plural ELOHIM which often appears in the Old Testament to denote Jehovah and is an obvious hint at the Trinity).

The Quran is explicit that the god it refers to as ALLAH is the god worshiped by the Jews in the Hebrew scriptures. The problem is that the Quran ascribes a very different personality to Him - capricious, and indifferent rather than committed.

Incidentally 'ALLAT' (meaning 'THE goddess' and presumably the most important pagan female deity of Mecca) does appear in the Quran, in the so-called Satanic verses which originally advocated her worship but which Muhammad changed, declaring that he had been fooled.

"New Age leaders say they have something for everyone. Does this mean they can meld science and New Age? The answer is yes... THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA DEPT OF ANESTHESIOLOGY has had a program since 1994 called The Biennial Tucson Conference since 1994. Toward a Science of Consciousness under the direction of theCenter for Consciousness Studies. Their description:"Toward a Science of Consciousnessis the largest and longest-running interdisciplinary conference emphasizing broad and rigorous approaches to the study of conscious awareness probing fundamental questions related to conscious experience. Topical areas include neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, biology, quantum physics, meditation and altered states, machine consciousness, culture and experiential phenomenology & contemplative approaches" ".

I'm not qualified to comment on NA and the biological sciences but NA in quantum mechanics is, as I have pointed out here before, trash. NA has done precisely nothing to advance testable prediction of physics experiments, even ones involving human observers. The underlying NA agenda is the claim that matter is conscious.

As for machine consciousness, the great 20th century mathematician John von Neumann once said, in response to someone who commented that a machine can't possibly think, "You tell me EXACTLY what you mean by 'think' and I will be able to design a machine that does it." Same goes for a consciousness. It is all about definition.

The whole concept of gender continuity is being push around as science. Homosexuality is no longer a disorder. The same with other forms of sexual diversity. Those who object are dismissed as flat earthers.

Physicist, Judaism doesn't understand God in terms of gender. The concept of God is much too big to have limits. It is just a linguistic need when speaking of God. Christianity seems to have taken it one step further with its emphasis on Jesus, male.

Paganism has a long history of dividing qualities into gender concepts. New Age promoters have used this to break strange ideas into monotheism. Long ago I noticed the following scenario being promoted.

God being everything must have both male and female characteristics. Women have to relate to the female characteristics of God. Surprise this was done in the past by those in the witchcraft movement. Welcome to the legitimate pagan witchcraft movement which is really not a break from Christianity or Judaism.

Manipulation is how New Age operates. One really cannot be on the fringes of information because this is where people are conned into accepting the unacceptable.

Where religion is concerned, it's the same as where physics is concerned. You know your subject and can't be conned into accepting foolish new ideas. Religious people must also know the history and specifics of their beliefs or they will be manipulated step by step into accepting ideas that are very foolish.

Allah is an old female goddess, they kiss her clit as represented by the meteor, sealed in a pussy shaped metal case, the clit absorbs their sins and once there was a kabal at every market, naked women danced around it, in worship to the different goddesses and the men went to enjoy the show. Muhammad was a wacko job who became possessed in a cave his aunt, who belonged to a heretical sect of the Catholic church (did not believe in the Trinity) wanted him to make money, she was instrumental in the woman wearing the nun outfits. Muslims still refuse the Trinity today. Muhammad had. sex for three days in the grave with his dead aunt...and worse..

the physical description given of the kaaba and its housing do not fit female genitalia. The kaaba is a some meteorite so Muhammed figured he could indulge the fanatic devotion to it as not being an idol made by human hands. the rest of the building housed idols he ordered destroyed, which were related to three supposed daughters of The God.

Most pagan systems acknowledge some top deity who is the creator or the starter of a sequence of creation, but is remote and they worship lesser deities in practice.

Muhammad exposed to some minimal Christian and Jewish teaching and decided to produce his own. There were no Trinity denying sects left except maybe for some small gnostic groups by then.

Bad as islam is, theologically and in practice, I think you have been listening to people who don't know much about it.

"Physicist, Judaism doesn't understand God in terms of gender. The concept of God is much too big to have limits. It is just a linguistic need when speaking of God. Christianity seems to have taken it one step further with its emphasis on Jesus, male."

And with His constant references to His FATHER in heaven. Not that my post at 7.53pm said anything about divinity and gender!

"God being everything must have both male and female characteristics. Women have to relate to the female characteristics of God. Surprise this was done in the past by those in the witchcraft movement. Welcome to the legitimate pagan witchcraft movement which is really not a break from Christianity or Judaism."

You are, surely, joking? Pagan witchcraft has no concept of a divine Creator and it worships aspects of the Creation.

Christine - Don't confuse the kaaba and the black stone. The kaaba is a cubic building of side 43ft in the centre of the courtyard of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The black stone is the eastern cornerstone of the kaaba. It is likely a meteorite and its silver setting and function within Islam are exactly as Liz has described them, graphically.

Liz - the title "Allah" would never be used to denote a goddess, because Arabic nouns have gender and ALLAH is intrinsically masculine. (If I said "that man has a vagina" you would say that my statement was logically contradictory; so is your assertion.) AL-LAT would be the feminine in arabic. Islam is a blend of garbled Bible stories and paganism and we don't have much information about the pagan deities worshiped at Mecca before Islam. Anything more about Arabic theology is speculation. And the claim that Muhammad was brought up in a heretical Catholic sect is undocumented - what is your evidence for it? His father was called Abdullah meaning "servant of god", but which god?

On the contrary. first, women do plenty of bullying. and men do plenty of tempting. second, islam is doing a great tempter game in its outreach and proselytising in the west. Also its mystical versions could be viewed as playing temptress.

The early church fathers rebuked men who wore their hair and so forth in ways that were attractive (i.e., seductive) to women in the same terms they rebuked women for going about in attire and hairdos that would rivet attention and excite desire.

6:04 - thank you for the clarification. I did confuse the two, not having done much study of that part just know it exists, I read the koran through twice in two different translations. several years ago.

A lot of islam is horked off Coptic monophysite Christianity that was around them and nestorian I think influenced them a little. The byzantine dome architecture may be partly Persian and partly Byzantine in origin, the style of worship involving bowing down with head touching the ground is from the prostration in Orthodox worship. Prayers five times a day probably was borrowed from 1st hour (6 am), 3rd hour (9 am), 6th hour (noon), 9th hour (3 pm), and vespers (5 or 6 or 7 pm or around sundown).

The Ramadan fast (though conducted rather differently being through daylight hours only) is an obvious steal off Great Lent.

Halal or clean food is any food except pork (a nod to Jews) but the blood must be poured out, which was the rule in Christianity (and in theory still is in the east but seems to be being forgotten in some EO populations I don't know about nestorian or Coptic) being reiterated in the Apostolic council in Acts and in at least 2 canons of Ecumenical Councils over the centuries later. This is not Mosaic Law but goes back to Noah.

Circumcision was normative throughout Abrahamic derived peoples but the female version, varying from removing the tiny flap of skin above the clitoris to the radical clean cut horror of Female Genital Mutilation was some development of unknown origin, and not specified in the koran.

nestorians and Coptics don't deny the Trinity, hence are called Orthodox but the former confusing person and nature seem to think a kind of double person exists in Jesus, while the monophysite Coptics and Armenians seem to think (again confusing person and nature) that there is too much distinction between the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Islam denies Jesus' divinity, affirms His miraculous virgin birth, but claims He was taken up to heaven from the Cross or just before it, a phantom illusion having taken His place and He didn't actually die. (This of course would deny the Atonement.)As for His being Son of God, they say that God "does not beget nor is he begotten" seeing this as an issue of did God have sex with a women and produce a hybrid Jesus or not? they say no, we also say no, but that Jesus' Sonship is not from that kind of begetting.

"On the contrary. first, women do plenty of bullying. and men do plenty of tempting."

Yes, but which is each sex's primary fallen personality trait?

"The early church fathers rebuked men who wore their hair and so forth in ways that were attractive (i.e., seductive) to women in the same terms they rebuked women for going about in attire and hairdos that would rivet attention and excite desire."

You have a reference for that about men's hair? In those pre-Welfare days it was a man's wealth that women were attracted to.

women bullying women is still bullying. and women physically abusing men also occurs, but the men are too ashamed to complain of such domestic violence.

why do you say "women bully other women a lot more than they bully men"? what is the point? do you feel that only men count? that only what happens to men matters?

The wealth is not the only thing. Hairdos can be erotically attractive, as can exposed chest I know I can feel attraction to these signals. The issue raised by the Fathers was erotic attraction, the heart being wounded by an infatuation, etc. not attraction to wealth. Those who were already wealthy might be attracted to someone.

The typical sins of men may be in the aggression category, though they also incl. a lot of seduction efforts regarding women, incl. other men's women, just like women seduce men incl. other women's men.

The typical sins of women are like the games in the higher end social sphere in business and politics by men, sneakier.

But the reason is how both are raised. IQ studies found something interesting. WORLD WIDE regardless of culture and conditioning otherwise, girls tended to do less well in math especial spatial skills, than boys, and better in language skills.

THERE WAS ALSO AN EXCEPTION, when a girl was raised a tomboy (or in other words left to her normal inclinations with encouragement, or without the inhibitions of "that's unfeminine, not ladylike, boys won't like you, yadda yadda," she had the male level math and spatial skills. (the increase in math skills in female tests since those 1950s or early 1960s tests probably relates to the pushing of girls into physical education i.e., sports, at least for a while in school.)

The boys who were raised overprotected, i.e., like girls are, tended to have the lower math and spatial skills and the higher language skills.

Obviously there is something amiss in how we raise our girls.

And girls are increasingly turning up in violent crimes and girl gangs etc. Its not as great as boys yet, and hardly something to be proud of. But it blows the sex linkage of character traits out of the water.So do those IQ tests.

Look at Adam and Eve. A "help meet"is ezer neged, a helper fit for because like unto him. See Strong's Concordance on these two words.ezer is a helper of the partner type not a gofer. neged is like face to face, can be either in opposition sense or used like we would say "man to man" like equal friends.

Eve had only Adam as her human model, and was "brought to him" so had spent some time discovering herself, her capabilities, and the world and animals around her like Adam had.

So you can figure Eve was a tomboy. A suitable "road dog" for a man. Not a barbie doll. In building the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah or was it Ezra I forget, it is stated that ALL the workers were armed, and it also says that a man AND HIS DAUGHTERS worked on the wall, so you can be sure they were armed also.

The whole sex link character thing is precisely back of the transgender scene. Supposedly, according to their thinking, you have a male or female soul. Normally you are born into the right body, but sometimes not. So you need an operation in the latter case, having a soul that doesn't match the body.

The acceptance of these freaks by the feminist movement, was one of the biggest sellouts feminism did. (another was accepting the gays, a different kind of sellout.)

This kind of thinking is also entrenched in the whole alternative spirituality and occult scene.

you don't a "feminine side" to God. Love isn't feminine, justice and anger are not masculine. You can find them both in either sex. You don't need to be androgynous, that is another sellout to the notion of male soul and female soul sexist occultism. (There is no grounds for this biblically, it is read into the Bible not taught in it.)women are encouraged in emotionalism that makes them more deceivable and manipulatable by families and men.

St. Paul raised this issue of greater deceivability in women but named Priscilla ahead of Aquila many times in his epistles, and mentions a deaconness and one Junia he puts on a par with the rest of the Apostles.

So if a woman has what some 1800s male supremacists denounced as "a man's mind" she is not some deviant kind, or out of place, and not to be put back "in her place."

That the church in the first two centuries had female priests (called presbyters or elders or presidents) is evident in that the Council of Laodicea (after Nicea I which did not address the issue) forbade women to be presidents or presbytides ANY MORE. they were in existence already, and since president is the person Justin Martyr said did the Eucharistic sacrifice, a woman president would have done that and teaching besides.

Laodicea did not say, women shall not perform the Eucharist. it said,women shall not be presidents. not, women shall be presidents if they don't perform the Eucharist. Clearly the office of president was what was later called priest. And that office INCLUDED performing the Eucharist. No distinction was made between having this office and performing the Eucharist, it was inherent to the office.

No arguments against women being priests incl. the sacerdotal role playing arguments of today, one of these days I will figure out when that line of thought started. Always the arguments appeal to traditions of men and society, to the curse on Eve which is part of the whole result of the Fall not part of God's original created order, and which incl. things like labor which no one called sin to alleviate if men alleviated this with better tools, harnessing up animals, etc. so it is hypocrisy.

that said, I oppose all female ordination, because it sends the wrong message to those interested in worship of false goddesses, not to mention the potential sexual allure or abuse of her status to get sex or use of her charms to keep men under control, bad women are harder to get rid of than bad men, and most have agendas that are not right for the clergy anyway. (so do a lot of male clergy but why add to the problem?) Probably the same reasons Laodicea had when they made the rule.

The term priest was developed off presbyter. Not hieros, Greek for priest.

Research-wise, there are lots of interesting things on archive.org, the internet archive. It's hit or miss what's on there, but sometimes things deemed "lost forever" can be retrieved, if you know the original website.

For example, anyone here remember a site called SpiritWeb? It's from the 90s, and hasn't been available or active for probably 10 years or more. But the site is archived, and you can look around and find names and concepts that were being tossed about 10-15 years ago or so.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010418143021/http://spiritweb.com/

From the looks of it, SpiritWeb was THE central internet site for all things New Age.

Physicist, in no way do I give credence to pagan beliefs, witchcraft, etc. From what I've learned they are man made explanations for what are seen as supernatural effects. Humans with a sense of curiosity who find themselves in a place in time, existing, with no rational explanations will try to understand and share their understanding with others, no matter how limited the understandings. Attacking the explanations as a result of evil planning is as stupid as attacking lightning as evil before human knowledge came to understand the reasons for lightning.

Academics try to explain Judaism and Christianity also as the result of human reasoning alone. Based on the positive effect on individual human life, society, cultures, civilization, it appears to me that more than human thinking provided these guidelines. Granted it requires faith plus analysis to reach that conclusion. That's where I see the difference between the belief systems.

I see the effort to pull the culture back to the primitive thinking ways as a loss rather than as a gain as some would have it because occult, pagan, primitive ways of seeing life have led to nothing positive. Some of the ideas may appeal to intellectual rationalization, but they offer nothing more. Accepting primitive ideas could lead us back to saying lightning is the work of the devil.

"That the church in the first two centuries had female priests (called presbyters or elders or presidents) is evident in that the Council of Laodicea... forbade women to be presidents or presbytides ANY MORE. they were in existence already"

According to Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 all Christians are priests - meaning servant ambassadors - of God. Each congregation was run by a plurality of episkopoi/presbyteroi (same people - one word denotes seniority and the other denotes function, ie oversight). And they were make, because 1 Tim 3 says that they must each be married to one woman. There is scriptural precedent for female diakonoi but if the early church had female presbyteroi then it wasn't being scriptural any more.

All of these words have changed in meaning - hiereus, presbyteros, episkopos - since the apostolic era. SAnybody who wants to discuss this should be aware of that or confusion will arise.

You seem to be reading your own interpretations into the Council of Laodecia. Those present present there said, these women were not ordained to offer sacrifice. A title of honour does not mean that they were.

I agree that gender stereotypes are overblown too much.

But, don't make it sound like the only options we have are evil patriarchy or cult feminism.

I certainly do not want women, being kept in their place, like they used to be. At the same time, I am opposed to the equality brigade, that basically wants to be worshipped. I agree that we do not need a feminine side of God, but this is exactly what the cult feminists want.

This is basically about them wanting to be worshipped or they will turn around and say that you hate them.

But, at the same time, this is not a value judgement, since son=male and daughter= female. This is objective reality. Men are not women who give birth.

men not giving birth has no relevance. some species both sexes raise the children, some only females. ours is in the former category.

"You seem to be reading your own interpretations into the Council of Laodecia. Those present present there said, these women were not ordained to offer sacrifice. A title of honour does not mean that they were."

cite your source, please, and I mean documents from the discussions at the council itself, not interpretations and explanations 1,000 years later.

I have read the canon at issue. It forbids churches to have female presidents any more. It says nothing about what a president does or does not do, that was early enough to the time of Justin Martyr and the terminology he was used to, for that to be understood already.

It did not say what a woman was ordained to do or not. In the 400s AD pope Gelasius complained of women being ordained priests to perform the Eucharist because of lack of suitable men, in Sicily which was in his bailiwick, I don't recall he said anything about Anatolia which was outside his jurisdiction. But apparently it happened there also.

Clearly, these were ordained priests who were women ordained to do the Eucharist that Gelasius complained of. Note he didn't say that all they have done needs to be redone and no one received a valid Eucharist who got it from one of them.

It did not say, do not allow presbytides to perform the Eucharist, it said, do not have presbytides.

Show me the discussions the bishops at Laodicea engaged in before the ruling, if these are available. I would like to see them myself. Some such exist for a few other councils.

Show me also anyone arguing from sacerdotal role playing and required gender for that, any time before AD 1000. Not assumptions read into it, but the kind of explicit statements made in the past few hundred years.

Show me where these things were sanctioned and NOT seen as abuses every time they took place?

St. Epiphanius, "Against Heresies" 79 3-4:

(374-77 AD):

"We come to the New Testament. If women were ordained to be priests for God, or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary in the New Testament....

But it was decided differently.

There were four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who were prophetesses, but not priests. Although there is an order of deaconesses in the Church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex...." [at baptism etc.]

Whence comes the recent myth?

Pope Gelasius, "Epistle" 14.26, March 11, 494 AD.

"Not only those who dared to do these things,but also those who have kept silent about the things learned thus far, lie under [danger of] loss of their own honor, if they do not hasten with all speed so that the deadly wounds may be healed with proper medication.

By what custom should they have the rights of pontiffs who fail in thepontifical watchfulness enjoined on them, to such an extent that they rather do things contrary to the house of God, over which they preside? And the amount of influence they would have withGod if they provided only what is proper, let them see that if the same amount [of demerit] they have, when with execrable zeal they pursue the opposite; and as if it instead were the rule by which the churches should be governed, they do whatever is opposed to the ecclesiastical rules: since if each of the pontiffs knew the canons, he should have kept them with spotless scare, and if perhaps he did not know, in his ignorance he should have faithfully sought counsel. All the more there is no excuse for those who err, because neither while knowing did he proposed to observe what he knew,nor if ignorant, did he take care to know what he should do."

He's talking about churches and those in charge that did nothing to stop this. He said, if they were ignorant, they should have sought counsel, since the canons were clear.

"There is a report that women seem to have been, we know not in what place, admitted to the levitical ministry, contrary to apostolic discipline,and unknown until today ....an ordination of this sort must be annulled,and care taken that no one for the future be so bold."

Anonymous 4:07Realize no matter how much logic behind your comments, nothing get through to Christine. She is an authority unto herself. She recognizes nothing beyond her own voice. She continues to post voluminously. Constance never takes a stand where Christine's posts are concerned except occasionally to foolishly say "Play nice" when Christine is challenged.

Because I continue to understand how dangerous the New Age movement is, I continue to post here and in many other places warning people. Constance has some kind of audience for her once a week radio program and her monthly general comments here. Christine is nothing but a space filler.

If Constance ever gets her book out, I don't know how many copies it will sell based on what I see here at the blog. I won't be one of the ones promoting it. Why would I be?

Anonymous 5:29That's not a very good answer. You and others can promote the book all you want. For thirty plus years I've worked to keep interest in the New Age movement alive on many sites, including this blog, even while Constance appeared to sleep. I worked to get others to this site and her work. I did it for reasons beyond support of Constance. She owes me nothing and I owe her nothing. If you feel her forthcoming book deserves support, do all you can to give it that support. Give it as much publicity as you are willing to work to do. Don't take it for granted that support will magically happen.

"There is a report that women seem to have been, we know not in what place, admitted to the levitical ministry, contrary to apostolic discipline,and unknown until today ....an ordination of this sort must be annulled,and care taken that no one for the future be so bold."

Annulled, void, invalid."

The ordination was to be annulled, but NO denial of validity of any Eucharists done by such.

"unknown until today" is obviously false, since Laodicea had to deal with this.

None of the arguments given relate to women can't be priests because Jesus is male and the priest is representing Jesus. THAT is the issue.

On WHAT GROUNDS it is not right for women to approach the altar is not stated.

I don't like female ordination, but the reasons have nothing to do with sacerdotal role playing Jesus male = priest must be male. I DO NOT SEE ANY SUCH REASONS GIVEN IN ALL THIS.

Tertullian denounces women baptizing, but anyone of either sex may baptize in an emergency.

Again NO MENTION OF MALENESS BEING NEEDED BECAUSE JESUS IS MALE.

And NO MENTION OF NON VALIDITY OF ANY SACRAMENT SUCH AN ORDAINED WOMAN PRIEST MIGHT DO.

The ordination is ordered to be annulled, rendered invalid, which means that it was valid until annulled.

NO STATEMENT THAT BAPTISMS OR ABSOLUTIONS DONE BY HER WERE INVALID AND NEEDED REDOING.

The entire rants appeal to cultural issues and the article at EWTN relies on St. Paul about speaking in church when the fact he refers to learning at home shows some heckling under pretext of asking questions, and gossiping and claiming when challenged they were discussing the faith was going on. The instruction to pray and prophesy with head covered indeed shows this WAS acceptable IF with head covered. Otherwise it would have been prohibited.Obviously some churches did take certain points (incl. that the subordination of women was a curse dependent on their default) to the next logical step. How wise this is on pragmatic grounds is another matter.

For examnple, bishops were only required to be celibate in North Africa as a concession to the overly sensitive public but this came to be general. I think this whole matter about women priests causing such outcry was due to a failure to address cultural conditions, because of too much public resistance. The reference at the EWTN page to penance for any of the clergy being found with their wives is part of the ANTI Biblical trend towards clerical celibacy, more adequately resisted in the East. St. Paul said a bishop and a presbyter SHOULD be married with a family. Nowhere does he even hint at celibacy.

Tertullian also denounces Scythian women for riding horses astride and so forth it is unwomanly, immodest, etc.

You don't like female ordination Christine? Neither do I. I don't think much of male ordination either. Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 are clear that under the new covenant priesthood comes automatically with faith.

I am not deflecting anything. Tertulllian's excesses negate the value of much of his opinion and he even joined the Montanists. Tertullian was a nutjob though perhaps not unusual for his time and place. That was my point.

The very use of the term "levitical ministry" shows that the church authorities who would use such a term were out of step with St. Paul's teaching about the priesthood - IT IS NOT LEVITICAL.

The Levitical priesthood has been replaced, because Jesus was not of a tribe eligible to be priest, yet He now is our High Priest. Change of priesthood brings change of law.

This renders all efforts to relate or order the Christian priesthood to the levitical priesthood dubious at best.

Of COURSE it meant Sacrifice, but he didn't say it was invalid.HE SAID THE ORDINATION MUST BE ANNULLED, and DID NOT SAY WHATEVER EUCHARISTS AND BAPTISMS AND ABSOLUTIONS SHE HAD GIVEN WERE INVALID AND MUST BE REDONE.

Why do you keep failing to address the constant LACK OF DEMAND for the redo of all sacraments performed by a woman priest?

This lack of demand for redo shows the sacraments were valid, and her ordination was sacramentally valid, but improper and to be cancelled but NOTHING SHE HAD DONE IN THE MEANTIME WAS INVALID AND NEEDING A REDO.

more than one subject.firstly, this blog's content aside from Constance's own first post, is not going to be taken as relevant to readability of her book by anyone.Why should they look at OUR words instead of HER words?

secondly, a father or a mother it is the same thing as far as what is needed. Discipline, enough emotional distance to be objective and fair, kindness also, compassion and wisdom to guide right and virtue to be a good leader by example. The simpering doting slobbering crap mother love stuff is NOTHING that any child needs from EITHER parent. to hell with the ideal of mother love, I have known nothing but evil from it, and I see evil elsewhere from it.

Remember, Adam the male was Eve's only human model. And our model as Christians, both male and female is a MAN Jesus Christ.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THE evidence here that the ordination has to be rendered null ergo is not null in itself automatically? It doesn't say "such ARE null" but that they "must BE annulled." (this was before sneak divorces were called annulments so to annul something was to undo it not to declare it was never done.)

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR ANY SACRAMENTAL ACTS SUCH WOMEN PRIESTS DID TO BE REDONE?

no claim that the acts were not valid? No demand that baptisms and absolutions be done again by a male priest?

I am sorry, but it seems like your personal bias and judgement is clouding your ability to think objectively. I do not what experiences you have had with a mother's love, but it's made your very angry, to the extent that you do not like feminine women too much.

The issue we are disagreeing on, is that since Jesus is male supposedly only a man can be a priest. Now, there are two problems. first, the priest only icons Jesus while performing the Eucharist, and when he does so, he does not become Jesus and say, "I Jesus break this bread and tell you eat it this is My Body" he says "Jesus on the night He was betrayed, took the bread into His hands and broke it and said eat ye all of this, this is My Body which is broken for you."

Now, anyone can recite someone else's words.

RC seems to rely on the ordination of the priest to accomplish this, the priest wielding a power he has received, with a weak epiklesis, while EO has always relied on The Holy Spirit to make the change, the priest must be ordained to do this, but the request for The Holy Spirit to make the transformation is made after the words of institution.(EO of course eliminated the female priest option a long time ago but that is not the point.)

Since we have a male, Jesus Christ, as model for both sexes, we have no business cultivating sex linked character differences or thinking in terms of fatherhood and motherhood, but rather how would Jesus do it, regardless of whether you are a father or a mother.

Secondly, Jesus appeared first to women, and sent them as apostles to the apostles to tell them. Just as the woman who was supposed to be the helper (which can incl. some management of him) of Adam led him wrong, so these women reversed the situation and led the men right. (The Theotokos, Mother of God, also has this role.)

The teaching in Paul's epistles about husbands and wives can be read in light of the environment. Effectively, it almost reverses the usual roles, making the man self sacrificing for the woman, focussing on Jesus' sacrifice for the Church as model. This pulls the teeth from patriarchy, and Paul also says to love your wife as yourself, same phrasing as Jesus saying "love your neighbor as yourself."St. Peter says to view your wives as coheirs of the kingdom. A co heir would be like a brother not an inferior sister. Disorderly women with the character flaws (vanity ambition and deceivability) of Eve were set back, but Priscilla is named BEFORE her husband several times, the house is called THEIRs not his, and so forth. A door was opened here, that was later slammed shut. But some did make use of it.

don't like feminine women - that has nothing to do with it. I was a tomboy before I knew how bad she was. health got in the way. When I was maybe 10 I was looking at a catalog of toys, and said to myself, "they hog all the good stuff for the boys!"

I read Prince Valiant comic strip and wanted to be a female knight and slay my own dragons and have a male knight as my consort. I never was interested in other women. femininity or lack thereof has nothing to do with sexual orientation. we all hear of "diesel dykes" "bull dykes" and so forth, but the ultra feminine "fem" type lesbians fly under the radar. For some reason, men get off on watching them do each other in porn. But these are not creations of male fantasy. Often the bull dykes have a fem les lover. The most dangerous homosexual men, the ones who do the rapes in prison and so forth, are not fag feminine gays. They often think they are straight because GET THIS they play only the male role in sex.

See how focus on role for gender plays to homosexual notions? That is why St. Paul had to stipulate that the arsenokoites were as damned as the effeminate. Arsenokoites translated abusers of themselves with mankind has been viewed as being self abusers i.e., masturbators, but arsen is Greek for man defined as the strong one, the dominant one, and koites is couching as in sex. The normal word for man in Greek is anthros. Arsenokoites therefore refers to buggery to the ones who do the buggery, and think they are still men. It would also by further application apply to rape and any dominance in sex, coercion or sex as a demanded perquisite by a superior in rank.

Yes, I agree that Jesus Christ reversed the effects of the fall, that results either in the extremes of patriarchy or feminism.

But, we are still human beings in need to redemption, and if we lose focus on the source of our redemption, we are back to square one.

Now, yes, the Holy Spirit effects the change, but this is done in relationship to the father and the son, not in isolation from it.

I am not saying that every woman who wants to be a priest is a raging man-hater or a lesbian etc, but there is something in the nature of the priesthood that attracts them in increasing numbers and this is true across churches.

"Now, yes, the Holy Spirit effects the change, but this is done in relationship to the father and the son, not in isolation from it."

did I say anything about isolating the Persons of The Holy Trinity?"the change" I refer to is making the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. I am not talking about working out our salvation as Paul says.

"I am not saying that every woman who wants to be a priest is a raging man-hater or a lesbian etc, but there is something in the nature of the priesthood that attracts them in increasing numbers and this is true across churches."

Indeed. In England an ordained academic called Leslie Francis (a man) found that women who put themselves forward for Anglican ordination had more masculine profiles than the average woman, and that men who put themselves forward had more feminine profiles than the average man.

Leadership must be male for this reason: women will follow a female leader, but men won't - nor will they follow a wimp.

Notice how St Paul told wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5). That is self-sacrificial AGAPE love, not just EROS which is obvious in a marriage.

I was referring to the same change. Those who claim the Holy Spirit would still affect the change, with a woman or transgendered man, are making a value judgement. Not looking at the objective nature of the sacraments.

Now, I am not saying it's impossible, since nothing is impossible with God, but it would be the exception, not the rule.

the whole problem of doing the sacraments in the way you describe it, as usual fails to address the lack of denial of validity of the sacraments performed by the women priests. their ordination was to be undone, but there was no demand that those who had received baptism, absolution or the Eucharist from them get it done again.

This is like the issue of once a priest always a priest (RC view which is denied by EO at least currently).

According to that doctrine of RC, once you have been ordained, even if you are defrocked you retain the power of making the Eucharist. If you do so after being defrocked, you have performed a VALID Eucharist but it is an ILLICIT performing of this.

VALID vs. LICIT is like this. If you drive a car, with a license you are (if it moves) driving validly and licitly. IF without a license, you are driving VALIDLY - it moves - but ILLICITLY - without a license.

you are the one who is confusing issues and ducking issues.

Now, RC has gotten very narrow detailed on issues of form content and INTENT. on that basis, without the propert intent of the priest, you do not know you can never know if you in fact received a valid sacrament of whatever kind. This is of course what happens when you start relying more on a power conferred in ordination than on The Holy Spirit.

The Epiklesis after the words of institution by EO eliminates all this, throwing the matter squarely into the hand of God. (this also means that the holiness or unholiness of the priest is irrelevant.) you can expect God will respond regardless of priest's belief intent or lack thereof if only for the sake of His Name and His people who need this Eucharist.

The Miracle of Lanciano is a classic case in point. Here bread and wine became human heart muscle tissue and five clots of blood, which dried and in those days the weight was the same whether weighed singly or together though this feature has faded.

THE BLOOD CLOTS HAVE THE CHEMISTRY OF FRESH BLOOD after over 1,000, while normal blood loses this in a matter of hours.

This was in response to the lack of faith of a priest, to prove the reality of the Eucharist. Now, this was before The Great Schism (not the RC internal dispute in the middle ages but the RC schism from EO).

By then the west was beginning to change tradition, and used unleavened bread while the east used leavened bread and mixed it with the wine. The parts of the Lanciano Eucharist point to this being an unleavened or azymes sacrifice.

Some argue Jesus could not have used leavened bread because He had the Last Supper before Passover, but the time of unleavened bread was for several days up to and incl. Passover. The EO argues that leavened bread is to say, we have gotten rid of the old leaven, this is the new leaven of Christ. In fact, this most likely developed because of availability issues.

But RC was arguing the leavened Eucharist was invalid, and EO argued the unleavened Eucharist was invalid. Lanciano proves their argument invalid, and that God can act even without faith by the priest, who must have been influenced by the dispute, and one would assume therefore proper intent.

Given that INTENT is an issue in RC doctrine, you have more to worry about, with all the problems in the priesthood, than whether the guy is a secret transgender.

Does he in fact have intent? you don't know. you never can know. No epiklesis, your whole system is potentially on the rocks.

Intent would be relevant in ordination and consecration. No intent? a whole lineage could be invalid.

You are deeply confused. Yes, the priest can be a heretic, but the Eucharist could still be valid, based on certain things. This is what we saw in the Luciano miracle. It's because the sacraments work objectively, not subjectively.

"and that God can act even without faith by the priest, who must have been influenced by the dispute, and one would assume therefore proper intent."

I just answered, this above. You do not understand the concept of intent. It has to do with doing what the church intents to do at a Eucharist.

"According to that doctrine of RC, once you have been ordained, even if you are defrocked you retain the power of making the Eucharist. If you do so after being defrocked, you have performed a VALID Eucharist but it is an ILLICIT performing of this."

This is ONLY if the priest does what the church does at a Eucharist. Not otherwise. A priest cannot read out of a pagan manual and have a valid Eucharist, just because the priest's ordination is still valid.

Now, if the priest did this at the SSPX Mass, it would be valid, but illicit. So your example would hold here, since the Mass has not changed.

Christine, you are dealing with more than one Anon here; I am the one who mentioned the work of Leslie Francis, and I have not been opposing you in the present gender debate. I think your other comments at 0939 are directed at someone else (although I would like to see your scientific evidence for the 'miracle of Lanciano').

If you google Leslie Francis you'll get your answer pretty quickly. In the 1970s he wrote a scholarly paper summarising his findings, called "The personality characteristics of Anglican ordinands: Feminine men and masculine women?"

it will cost me 31.50 pounds to read it. I can't afford 31.50 in USD. my usual bootleg sources have nothing. can you put the list of character features up? given that the abstract says "The mean extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism scores recorded by the female ordinands are closer to the male than the female population norms, while the mean extraversion scores recorded by the male ordinands are closer to the female than the male population norms"it doesn't sound too good regarding either the female or male ordinands.

basically all versions of something, when defined as masculine are in their more aggressive and if feminine in their more sneaky and passive form. In all this sexism, there is a big failure to address the issue of sin.

A lot of masculinity is just baptised sin. a lot of femininity is just baptised sin.

I look at photos of these women, and I do not see humility or godly peace. I do not see anything like typical EO or the better RC priests. Some few even seem hard in a wrong way. Nothing I would want to see in either sex.

"The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was completed by 155 male and 97 female Anglican ordinands. The emerging personality profiles are not consistent with predictions advanced against what is generally known about the relationship between the Eysenckian personality constructs and religiosity. The mean extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism scores recorded by the female ordinands are closer to the male than the female population norms, while the mean extraversion scores recorded by the male ordinands are closer to the female than the male population norms. The implications of these findings are discussed for parish ministry."

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire is summarised at its own Wikipedia page; her eis a slightly later version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eysenck_Personality_Questionnairelooking it over (and taking an online version) I am not too impressed. However, comparing someone to population averages of males and females on anything is a big problem.

Our population averages have changed over the past 200 years. In other cultures, different concept of feminine and masculine character exist, with people growing up programmed and acting and thinking accordingly. For example, in the west artistic, poetic emotional is usually seen as feminine, hard headed pragmatic as masculine. it is the REVERSE in Iran.

However, since the male is valued more highly, these "masculine" qualities of poetic, emotional artistic features are esteemed more highly and the pragmatic less so.

The ONLY thing that was a uniform result in tests of children and teens across the world, as per the 1950s, was girls/low math and spatial, high verbal and language skills, boys/high math and spatial, low verbal and language skills.

The exception in all these locations, was that a girl allowed to be her normal "tomboy" self had high math and spatial skills, and maybe lower verbal and language skills, while the over protected boys had low math and spatial and higher verbal and language skills.

Now, a characteristic feature of human beings is LANGUAGE. It would seem that the typical upbringing of boys insofar as it does not encourage talking that much, is ANTI HUMAN and working against God's creation order for anyone human.

The key to math seems to be spatial skills which in turn depend on getting used to one's body and its relationship to a fast changing environment incl. other people and animals around one. (sports provides this.)

So the one unalterable eternal verity about the sexes devolves into yet another conditioned thing.

As for men not giving birth, that means nothing. Any cruel stupid or whatever asshole can get knocked up and give birth. Cross culturally, the greatest time of danger for an infant to be murdered, is in the first few hours or days after birth.

Women in some places with high infant mortality have had to be educated on how to care for their babies, so much for instinct!

Even language use seems dependent on upbringing, since a deaf mute can't speak not because they CAN'T speak but because lacking hearing they can't practice the ability to speak.

Forget myth, deal with reality.

Which by the way is the essence of The Sermon on The Mount, where Our Lord Jesus Christ tackles the issue of what is really going on in the mind, the heart (not emotions but deeper levels of the mind) as well as secret actions, as distinct from keeping up appearances.

looking more into that test, it seems there are three versions out there. And many of the questions are bad because they give no wiggle room for "because." two people could give the same answer to the same question for radically different reasons. and it relies too much on self evaluation without checking with people who know the testee and does not allow for once in a long while stuff like were you ever late to an appointment? if you say no you get a positive on the lie scale but you may be referring to 98% of the time or forgotten something.

Gender is not a social construct, even if no two men or women are alike. If upbringing plays a role, then women priests also have to do with upbringing and culture, in this case, Western feminism and not Christianity, since the Biblical worldview is binary.

the Biblical worldview is NOT binary. you read that into it, because of cultural baggage left over from paganism.

It is the pagan fertility oriented worldview that is binary. Believe me, I have studied occultism for decades, originally for the wrong reasons. Two things turned me off a lot of pagan and witch stuff before I became Christian.one was that sexist binary worldview.the other was the sexual promiscuity in ritual settings and often outside them. (many pagan cultures had the attitude that you had to be chaste, faithful to spouse etc. except during certain specific times. others defined chastity in other ways so that some things "don't count." sexual looseness undermines romantic attachment and compromises loyalty, and renders the sex act itself irrelevant to what the couple feel about each other, meaningless, if they can do it with just anyone and not be oriented only or primarily to each other. This I did not like.

the binary worldview of the Bible is distinction between Creator and creature, not between man and woman. personality and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other.

(I strongly suspect some fag type gays who like butch gay men, might do better if they were surrounded with more butch type heterosexual females.)

being a so called masculine inclined woman, I noticed that I often attracted bisexual men. This I can do without. But it got my attention to what may be an underlying dynamic of some of this, failure of socalled feminine women to provide the psychological needs of some men.

I was of course accused of being a lesbian by street creep men who value their supposed purity of white blood (questionable by the phenotype of most of them they had to have something else in there a few generations back) and masculinity defined as being dominant over women and over any man they could dominate unless everyone was so drunk and on pot or LSD enough they were all mellow. A woman who wouldn't put up with nonsense was therefore automatically a lesbian. Well, I guess that makes Constance a lesbian, since she is in a male profession (so considered by 1800s standards) and won't put up with nonsense.

Christine, if men and women consistently score differently on a personality questionnaire, and a particular subset of men consistently score nearer the women than other men do, then those men can be said to have feminine personality traits - regardless of the fine details of the questions. That is elementary logic.

what you are missing is, that that listing of traits as more likely male or more likely female is itself assuming that such traits chronically appear in either sex, which they do not OVER TIME AND GEOGRAPHY. What is feminine personality in generation and location a is not necessarily feminine personality in generation and location b.

a lot of what we take for granted in women in the late 20th and 21st centuries, incl. the ability to stand up to a man who is wrong, would be considered masculine in the 1800s and early 20th century.

My grandmother was one of the first women to be driving a car in her time, she was born in 1894 and lived to 103. Nowdays this is considered normal, but back then it was a masculine thing to do. involved a new and dangerous technology and a sort of thrill seeking, adventure loving.

Until recently if you had high math scores and didn't care what boys thought about you, only about finding the right guy for you and your personality, you would be considered masculine and abnormal. The father was the disciplinarian and the mother coddled. I remember a man writing that if his kid was wronged by another kid or the other broke his window, whatever, he would rather deal with that other kid's father than its mother.

Because its father would be more oriented to right and wrong, and the mother would be "my kid right or wrong," not his phrasing but that's what it added up to.

THAT ATTITUDE OF THE TYPICAL MOTHER HE RAN INTO, IS TOTALLY UNCHRISTIAN. IT IS EVIL, SEDUCTIVE, AND CORRUPTIVE.

it seems to me, that a lot of "feminine personality traits" are flat out SIN and need to be ruthlessly ERADICATED from them.

Being able to communicate and being compassionate are typically called feminine. Well, then Christ was a feminine type male by that standard.

See where all this sexist garbage leads? blasphemy.

I repeat, the pagan occultic worldview is binary with the yin yang, positive negative, reinforced by findings in electricity and magnetics, which are only part of the picture anyway. The biblical view is not binary beyond Creator distinct from creation.

Read Genesis. Eve was lauded as LIKE Adam, and had no model but her own experience of exploring the world, and a male, and had the task of helping him as an ezer neged, a partner who stands face to face with him. The focus of marriage was the relationship, children would be a result, but not the proper purpose. Of course he would help her with this problem of pregnancy, birth and handling the brats. After all, he is her buddy and she is his buddy. All would have been well.

Everything else comes after the Fall, with Eve being CURSED with a yearning towards Adam that would result in his ruling over her by default.

And she wasn't called Eve originally, a name defining her by her being mother of all living. Originally she was ishah, diminutive of ish man as an individual.

Feminism is not rooted in Scripture, to be sure. But there are SEVERAL POINTS IN IT THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW as rooted in Genesis.

Alleviation of the curses regarding hard work and increased pain in childbirth, are not called sin (except some preacher in the 1800s saying anesthetic in childbirth is violating God's curse), and the curse in Hebrew is "I will greatly increase thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION." Perhaps we originally only ovulated yearly or semiannually like most animals. The old idea of menstruation being "the curse" might well have come from someone having figured this out, menstruation would not have been monthly but yearly or twice a year.

birth control would be another alleviation of the curse, but not the kinds that are abortifacient. Church canons only addressed abortifacient measures explicitly referring to killing the infant in the womb. barrier contraception and something rendering one infertile by stopping ovulation would not be condemned by these.

You still do not get it. I am making a distinction between feminism, i.e. equal opportunities for men and women and cult feminism, i.e. welcome to the age of Aquarius, time to worship the feminine etc.

There is something about the priesthood that attracts cult feminists in large numbers.

This is because it represents the Man Jesus Christ. The cross is what unites men and women.

At every liturgy we at the foot of the cross at the timeless sacrifice, uniting heaven and earth.

It's like the centre of the earth's axis.

The biblical worldview is binary because it makes distinctions. Dualism holds that all is same.

you are shifting ground. I already draw a distinction between, shall we say, Aquarian feminism and original feminism.

The very idea of equal opportunities was APPALLING to the men and women of the 1800s who opposed woman suffrage and who opposed them speaking in a mixed sex group or even voting in a private organization that incl. men, because this implied their opinions were as good as those of men(regardless of content of opinions), and these people were REALLY into the sex linked character stuff, not only THINKING they are like you and others.

The very idea of equal opportunities means that a woman with traditionally (defined as 1800s) masculine traits (needed for professional and some hard work jobs) would be rewarded instead of penalized as she, such an abnormal thing, should be penalized.

No Dualism DOES NOT CONSIDER ALL IS ONE. that is MONISM. Dualism is the position that there are at least two things in play. Usually it is an unbiblical worldview of contrasting body and spirit matter and spirit with the former bad and the latter good. (gnosticism.)

Making distinctions is another kind of slippery talk. You want to put a woman in a man's job or a man's risks? okay. you make a distinction. Exactly what is her height, weight, and arm reach? a lot of women won't cut it, and shouldn't be there. Those who are taller and leggier therefore also longer arms, fine. The same rule regarding male applicants.

How should a woman train to fight? Unless she is huge, she needs to think in terms of "dirty fighting" aka special forces hand to hand stuff, not marquis of queensbury rules, which do not apply in the street or in domestic abuse anyway.

So she needs to train like a smaller man would need to train and think who expects trouble from larger men.

The distinction is not gender, it is height weight strength (the later alterable) specifics. Never mind comparative strength, what are the body's weak points? what can you hit gouge twist or whatever in order to DO MAXIMUM DAMAGE with minimum force. (using less drastic measures I have squared off against men successfully in fight situations a few times.)

because I focus more on objective than subjective stuff, and details and will engage in arguments (you can catch my more aggressive style in some 1990s posts in arguing with people on some usenet now google groups posts and so forth I mellowed a lot under the influence of Orthodoxy) I have usually been misidentified as male when I only use the handle Infowolf or Infowolf1.

Women due to the curse often are excessively vain, passive aggressive game players, and worried about opinion of others. These are recognized as flaws when they appear in men, but considered "feminine." Actually, they are flaws, period. Fearfulness, manipulativeness, gossip, casual or calculated slander (as in false accusations) and all kinds of sneaky stuff. Men are more direct, till you get to the boardrooms, then it gets more sneaky and "civilized." women who desperately want to get married to just ANYBODY are not after love and partnership so much as to fulfill a social role, not be seen as an old maid.

I like the old gal who when asked why she had never married said this: "what do I need a husband for? I already have a stove that smokes, a parrot that swears, and a cat that stays out all night."

Christine, it is fairly obvious that the Eysenck Questionnaire, while somewhat culturally relative, does include some of the differences that should, according to scripture, prevail between men and women. And it is abundantly obvious if you meet a few (as I have done) that female ordinands are bossy types and, with honourable exceptions, male episcopalian ordinands tend to be wimps. Leslie Francis was on to something alright. Let those see who have eyes to see.

""The distinction is not gender, it is height weight strength (the later alterable) specifics. "

This distinction exists BECAUSE of gender not despite it."

WRONG. some populations have minimal sexual dymorphism among humans, some have a great difference.

THE EXACT SAME DISTINCTIONS EXIST BETWEEN MEN OF DIFFERENT SIZES.

The LGBT crowd are wrong about harm to children, NOT because they need two different kinds of parenting from two different people. (which in a butch fem lesbian couple instead of both butch or both fem, or in a butch fag male couple instead of both fag they WOULD have.)

The problem is strictly one thing, and ONE THING ONLY.

They will be raised to think that this perversion is an acceptable option. They may or may not tend that way themselves. But they will be crippled from opposing it as wrong, and ambivalent because they love their parents.

AGAIN.

THE REASON SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS WRONG, IS BECAUSE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIONS ARE WRONG.

THE HARM TO THE CHILDREN IS MORAL.

Throughout past times, children had MANY parents. They had the immediate blood or adoptive parents, and they had a range of extended family in the mix as well. A man or woman might be raised by a widowed mother and her sister or mother. A man or woman might be raised by his widowed father and an uncle.

NO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY AND NO SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUALITY.

The sole harm done is precisely what the LGBT crew, and the politically correct straight evaluators REFUSE TO FACE.

THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS BEING PRESENTED AS AN ACCEPTABLE LIFESTYLE, and presented to the childby people he or she loves, is dependent on, and hardwired to follow unquestioningly up to a certain age and likelyto feel loyalty to that can bias his or her judgement.

that is the problem.

And the fact that you "conservatives" can't see it, or won't deal with it, shows how compromised you really are.

Directing the argument about parenting styles and needing a mother and father etc. may be merely a propaganda ploy, fine. I don't know if it is working.

But it feeds the very notions of gender of soul and the acceptance of wrong kinds of parenting of one kind or another as okay because male or female, that is key to the whole transgender bullshit in the first place.

you wouldn't have trannies except for an occasional one who likes to get in the pants of straights of their own sex, or loves someone who wants someone more male or female seeminhg, IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE NOTION OF SEX LINKED PERSONALITY.

Without that ideology, there is no transgender motive.

Transgenderism is rooted, TOTALLY ROOTED, in the idea of sex linked personality.

then noting they don't fit, they argue they are in the wrong body, and need to change the body, instead of questioning the legitimacy of the notions they have been fed.

Transgenderism is the logical outworking of conservative sex personality linkage ideas. And it also has some supporters in the occult scene.

The very harping in the occult philosophy scene, very intense in alchemy for instance, on this sex linked personality thing, would both reinforce transgender error, and attract those affected by it.

Also, if steeped in such notions, it makes occult philosophy look legitimate.

Androgyny is anti feminist in terms of original feminism, precisely because IT DOES NOT DENY SEX LINKED PERSONALITY.

It affirms this, absolutely. It then says, combine them and be male and female.

you can't have occult sacred hermaphrodite nonsense without a sex linked personality ideology to build on. you'd have to invent one out of whole cloth.

The sex linkage of personality is minimal. It occurs far more often in animals, and there is an interesting pattern which is perhaps not universal.

in general, the species with the big differences between the sexes, physically and psychologically are the ones who are polygamous or promiscuous. The character and physical traits relate to direct or indirect breeding relevant issues.

(biggest strongest handsomest male gets all the girls, which results in bigger stronger females, better for the species.)

the monogamous species are much less like this.

And we may not be very monogamous in practice, but it seems to be something we were supposed to be and that God mandates for us. Evenwhen He allowed polygamy, there were tight limits. In those days before the rabbinate took over, apparently a woman could initiate divorce. And be she wife or concubine, if he lessens her food, clothing or "marriage due" (sexual attention) for another woman, she could "leave without paying money." the bride price he'd paid was lost.oops. hit 'em where they live, in their pockets.

I noticed that the polygamous fundamentalist mormons have a society like this: older dominant men hog all the women incl. barely pubescent. young males are almost driven out of town.

Wow. This looks like a typical ungulate scene. Dominant male or males in the center, losers driven to the periphery, where they may mate sometimes, but primarily they are the first to get hit by a predator.

should a human society look like an society of hooved and horned galloping whatnot? I don't think so.

your remark is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what academics say, I was using gender to mean what it always used to mean, physical sex. The two words sex and gender used to mean the same things among academics, gender being more polite and without raising the question are we talking sex as verb or adjective?

The academics have been influenced by whatever crap they picked up before they were credentialed, and redefined things. Same deal with gays getting delisted from the DSM as a mental illness. And many other things.

The whole subject is human sex or gender linked personality differences. My point about animals is, that the kind of differences ascribed to humans, mostly appear only in polygamous and promiscuous animals. another reason to doubt their propriety from a biblical standpoint.

Now, learning disabilities. Well, learning didn't used to be a male problem that much. In fact, in centuries back to mid 20th century, academic excellence and even art were considered male.

An interesting aside. In the ages past, nursing was a step towards being a doctor. When women starting with Florence Nightingale and some others started flooding into this profession, it was quickly put off the promotion spectrum, because women don't belong in something authoritative like medicine.

Then there is "gentlemen's grades," Ivy League scene where you expect to get ahead not by competition but who you are, so really high grades were kinda declasse. Comparable to the idea that "real men" don't do well in school, they get bad grades and hang around in gangs, get laid and get in fights.

Schooling has gotten lousy anyway. Part of it is loss of control. Once you can't use physical punishment or even defend yourself you get kids out of control. And if you can't safely touch a kid who in the good old days would be dragged to the principal's office who would interrogate and then whack you with a ruler, which the teacher might do anyway, then of course the only recourse left is the police, and the press get upset. Time out hardly works with someone who doesn't want any part of the school scene anyway.

I don't see how you can say "you agree studies on animal sexuality are selective."

I don't think you have read, or at least understood anything much I have said. I did not say anything about them being selective.

I said that the kind of dimorphism of personality/character between sexes that is claimed to be innate for humans, is not generally found in monogamous or serially monogamous animals, but is VERY typical of promiscuous or polygamous animals.

It is therefore species inappropriate for us, if you take the Biblical view that God intended us to be monogamous as per Genesis chapter 2.

"In Academia, sex and gender has not meant the same thing, since the 20th century or earlier."

I don't know where you get your information, but whoever told you that was either lying or assuming norms of his or her time were eternal verities. Actually it began in AD 1955.

"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender."

that would be getting too far off topic. though both will deal with the errors of the New Age relating to both of the books' subject matters, the subjects themselves are really not relevant to this blog. usually.

But I will post an announcement here when they are ready, in case anyone is curious, and it will describe the subject matter briefly.

I plan to address ideas rather than personalities. This attacks the enemy infrastructure - its actual and potential converts. preventing hopefully conversion, making them more cautious of persons whether preachers or politicos who make some kinds of statements, and possibly deconverting some converts. This will happen in the course of discussing the subjects the books are about.

that said, the titles and subjects should draw readers who are already to some extent interested in some New Age and other dubious ideas, and they will get alternative interpretations of the facts the NA sometimes appeals to in their propaganda, plus people who are more sensible.

"who are already to some extent interested in some New Age and other dubious ideas"

Oh this should be interesting. Constance may just learn what kind of snake she has nurtured in her bosom, something she has ignored because it has filled up space in her comments section. The filled up space she may think attests to the size of her following has actually been working against her excellent research. Freedom of speech demands a response to stupid information from those who care about truth.

this is a classic example of what I talked about earlier, people believing any damn crazy thing but passing tests, getting accredited and bringing their nonsense (and network of fellow travellers) into academia or whatever professional work they're in.

Once upon a time, but not far away in space, this kind of stuff would be recognized for and dismissed as the nonsense it is. good for nothing but romantic musings in poetry, get outta here and go to the literature department or maybe art. don't expect to be accepted in anything REAL in university or whatever.

But unfortunately these people and their ideas have over the decades and generations infiltrated and almost taken over.

Part of it is the proliferation of pseudo science and philosophy books and articles and even movies and songs, and the general population gets wierded out enough to accept it, next generation it is more extreme with certified academics (who should be certified insane) spewing this garbage which once would have been viewed as a psychiatric possible condition brewing.

Christine 9:34 a great description of what you've done to this blog which was set up to expose the New Age movement. You've infiltrated it with your strange ideas, which most rational people would reject but in these times anything goes it seems.

If you truly know what the New Age movement is and how it operates, you are dangerous because you deliberately divert others from taking the time to learn. If you think you know but you don't, you are not a manipulator but just as useless when it comes to the real thing. In that case you are just diversion entertainment. Some people may believe your foolish ideas because they think you know what you are talking about because you go on and on as if you know.

No, I don't blow hot and cold about you. I dislike you so much because you are a blow hard. Your good qualities that you do not put to good use are that you have a sense of curiosity and are a verbal fountain. You have no sense of of your own weaknesses, are full of pride and so have not put those good qualities God gave you to any good use. In that way you are very much like Obama who is bringing this country to destruction.

Anonymous 12:40 is a great example of what goes wrong sometimes on this blog. This person, whoever it is thinks that exposing the New Age is the only thing that counts. If you expose the New Age, but you don't have the love of God in you and you don't come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, who really cares?

I'll paraphrase the Apostle Paul when he says we can speak with the tongues of men and angels, have the gift of prophecy, have all kinds of mysteries and knowledge, we can have faith to move mountains feed the poor, give our bodies to be burned but it profits nothing if we don't have love.

Love is patient, kind, does not brag is not arrogant, doesn't act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, doesn't take into account wrongs suffered, doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in truth . Everything else will cease, and you can read the rest for yourself in 1 Corinthians 13.

Our God is a God of love. He loved us so much he came and died for us while we were still sinners and he didn't do this because we were lovely or perfect or beautiful or intelligent or rich or educated or because we are experts on the New Age. If we go to our graves as experts on the New Age that will not bring us life. Remember that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden chose knowledge of good and evil over life and you can see what it cost them and us for their mistake, but the good news is that Jesus came to redeem all of us regardless of who we are from the curse and we can have life, only in him.

My suggestion to you is that you humble yourself before a holy God and ask his forgiveness for your sins, and don't say you have no sin because the Bible says that anyone who says they have no sin is a liar and the truth isn't in them.

If you do this, God will give you a new heart and take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh and then he can write his words on your heart and you will have love and forgiveness in your life and kindness towards others who are different than you.

I'm sorry to be so direct but I have seen Christine abused on this blog and that is just simply wrong. Someone who knows God's love would not want to do this to another human being made in his image.

Stephano: I am not 12.40am but I think you should not assume that everybody (here or elsewhere) who is anti-New Age is Christian. The Skeptics movement is secular and anti-NA, for instance. I am a Christian and I would not personally write of Christine as 12.40am does, but Christine has made a real mess of this blog, and Constance (whose blog it is so let us not criticise) has chosen to let her. I'm not surprised that others show less tolerance.

"And all of this has what to do with the New Age movement? Even on a very fringe level? My ears are open. I'm willing to learn.

8:55 PM"If you have to ask what women's ordination has to do with the New Age, then you are not the expert you think you are. Briefly, the motives for women's ordination are usually pride, and the arguments usually attack church and Bible authority instead of reexamining the church and Bible to see where humans might have gotten something wrong in interpreting and applying these. Neopagan and gnostic sentiments run amok here also. These things are the essence of the New Age Movement. individual players come and individual players go, but the real issue is what they are purveying.

"Christine, it's very hard to work out just who your targets are at 9.34pm. Would you give an example of the stuff you are complaining about and where and how it has infected the universities?"

you must be heckling. tell me you aren't really this idiotic.

The target is the people and subjects described in the immediately preceding post, and another similar post I also supported.

The WHAT that infected is New Age consciousness skubala and the HOWis detailed in my remarks and in any drawn out history of New Age influences start with Constance's book The Hidden Dangers of The Rainbow.

step one. A few people believe some nonsense, they exist in 2 categories, already in power or influence, and those not. They can give minimal support to something silly before the institutional machine so to speak opposes it.

Stage 2 the ideas are promoted through the populace, more and more of whom now accept it. When they themselves get into power they use it to promote the ideas, and there is a growing presence of such people among the ranks of the credible.

step 3. It becomes respectable if still puzzling.

Bear in mind these stages also exist regarding ideas that are NOT silly or evil.

Stephano, studying Christianity is an area of value, but it isn't the only area of study that can be pursued. Following your line of thinking, no one would study medicine, physics, biology, history, philosophy or any other area of information about the material world. While it seems your particular pursuit of knowledge of Christianity is good, objectively it is closer to how Muslims or New Agers think they are to view the material world. OK. You can say your approach is different, superior, but that's the same way they truly believe is the right way to approach all knowledge. While your body of information is superior, the thought process about it is the same.

wait a minute...IF the body of information IS superior THEN what is wrong with hanging onto it and preferring it to lesser bodies of information that have some, more or a lot of error, or truth so interweaved with error you need a major setbreaking operation before you can use them?

your approach, 11:10, is like saying, we shouldn't prefer modern ways of diagnosis and treatment to humor theory and leeches, because it is another way of doing things (and sometimes, when it happened to correspond to what was going on it worked and leeches are sometimes still used, but that is a result of a setbreaking operation, take what works and leave the rest).

if animism theory assigns the cause of plant effects to "spirits" and modern science to chemicals, why should we shun the former for the latter? I'll tell you why, the latter gets you more useful application and sometimes additional sources for the healing elements in the plants than the animist has on his list.

Christine, it's obvious you really don't understand what others post. There's a lot you don't understand and yet you just keep posting, posting, posting. The New Age movement moves slower but it is just as dangerous as Nazism or Communism. It is not just a matter of some off the wall thinkers who have attracted other off the wall thinkers, some minimal of interest thing that serious observers of life can ignore. It is not just Agenda 21 promoters. You go on and on about your view of religion and then say it's all about women taking leadership positions in religious establishments without ever giving the names of the organizations behind these efforts or the history of these efforts, leaving others to think it's some goofy people who are attracting other goofy people.

When other posters give specific information about the New Age movement, you flood the thread with your view of life so that no real followup takes place.

If you can flood the threads with your thoughts about life, I have no problem flooding the thread with my thoughts about you. Both are an equal waste of time.

12:28 if you do not examine these various tentacles if you hammer at only one head of the hydra, then you will not get very far. I am looking at NOTHING as being THE ONLY THING but ALL of them are CRITICAL things as part of a multifaceted attack and Agenda 21 is a major part of it currently, but BY NO MEANS THE ONLY PART, I agree.

Your narrower approach would leave us all cutting off one tentacle while two others strangle us.

Think outside the box.

If I wanted to be nasty, I would say you are an agent of the NAM trying to cripple us. I don't think that (unless you are the usual attacker whose targets and style are too wierd to be an accident. Even falsely claimed to have tried to educate me when it took months to get around to her or his real target, banking and finance, didn't whisper a word on this before the last blog thread or maybe the previous one. Well, that is a major part. But I thought everyone here knew that already.)

WHEN DID I EVER SAY IT IS ALL ABOUT WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP?

ANSWER: NEVER. That is one of several subjects that came up. It is a matter that has been being exploited by the NAM for some time now. part of the challenge all existing paradigms so they can be replaced with their paradigm which is so totalitarian in working out that it is unlikely to be any better for women than for men and might even include requirement of breeding for some women whether they want to do so or not. remember, the eugenics crew has always been a part of all this.

of course it is more dangerous than Nazism or Communism. But it is also a subtle resurgence of Nazism as Constance has repeatedly pointed out.

My views on religion?

YHWH IS. HE has proven Himself in many ways. Start from there. Study the Torah and Prophets and history and archaeology. And He has said that things will get very bad before He steps in and calls a halt to the war. And it won't be communism, capitalism or nazism that ends up in charge either. It will a be an immortal physical but supernatural King, His Messiah Jesus Who will crush the antichrist (christ means messiah just greek and hebrew).

Nazism is worse than communism, because it is a coherent religion combining two sorts. One, an ethnic based mysticism which can and did compromise Christianity and made concessions all the while planning to destroy it after Hitler was done with the Jews. Two, a resurgent paganism. Communism since it is atheist, is merely a vaccuum, that after a while some tire of and start looking for something spiritual, and some of them find the True Faith. Some don't. But an evil presence and overt lies and twisting of truth is worse than a mere absence of truth. It is already meeting some psychological and emotional needs of its followers, which atheism can't do forever. Therefore it is harder to rebel against than to merely tire of a vaccuum.

"wait a minute...IF the body of information IS superior THEN what is wrong with hanging onto it and preferring it to lesser bodies of information that have some, more or a lot of error, or truth so interweaved with error you need a major setbreaking operation before you can use them?"

Great rhetorical question Christine. I couldn't agree with you more. Why then do you persist in believing that a few statistical outlier results from physics experiments done in amateurish fashion in the 1950s using apparatus thousands of times less accurate than today's, and inconsistent with subsequent results, indicate new physics rather than experimental error?

To do that I would have to write a book. The information is out there, dig for yourself. Hint: put spin on something and you change a lot about it.

Personally, I suspect that most of this stuff would more likely function best as a "force multiplier" in any situation, military, normal technical, whatever, than a thing in itself.

one more hint: the math on explosives, for one thing, or any other issue of "yield" explosive or otherwise, is based on previous observation. Then you put the same stuff together and can expect the math to tell you how to repeat, ramp it up or lessen it.

But this all assumes that the maximum yield is all you can get.

Okay, so the maximum yield WHATEVER it is IS whatever it is. That doesn't mean that we in fact know what it is, that we know in fact how much energy is there in anything to get out of it, only how much we have been able to get out of it so far.

To argue that you can't get out what isn't in it, ignores two things. firstly, this ASSUMES that all that is in it is all we have got so far. Makes some serious changes and you might get more. What changes? who knows? just tinker.

secondly, it may under some conditions gate energy in from somewhere else. This might or might not be some parallel dimension, it might be nothing more than ambient energy from radio, sunlight, van allen belt stray stuff or whatever. This MIGHT be a trapped angle of its own contained energy we can't usually access, in which case it isn't "gating" anything in from somewhere else.

But something has been going on now and then, sometimes with dead serious results. (hole blown in roof by escaping Searle device, and Searle himself got legal trouble from his experiments disrupting local electrical supply systems. metal fused into wood in the Hutchison Effect. I am not interested in spoon bending, that can be done by fraud.)

I never said working in the presently known limits of physics is worthless and should be dumped. Its just that those known limits are probably not the actual limits.

Some experiments depend on exact replication of materials, for instance, Wilhelm Reich (yes I know he is a New Age darling and had some dubious moral theories but that is beside the point, NAM ancestors were pulling the same game with standard electricity and magnetism as supposedly proving theosophical points in the 1800s so what?) got results using platinum coated expensive lab equipment. when he used cheaper stuff, it didn't work. Back to platinum coating, it works. Obviously there is some catalytic action going on here he never even tried to account for.

Well Christine, if you write a book about physics I am in no doubt that it would be a remarkable publication. Perhaps the reviews you get would convince you that I am not an unrepresentative one-off, except in being the only one prepared to dialogue with you. How often I sought to explain the basics to you in good faith, but you decided that you knew better. Or you might instead write off the entire academic physics profession as herd-following closed-minded second-raters compared to yourself. Which would be a pity given that you can't even solve the Schrodinger equation in a uniform potential.

what makes you think I thought you were an unrepresentative one-off? as for trying to explain the basics, as I kept telling you, I know the basics and this is beyond them. this doesn't refute them, but they don't refute it and it is another angle on the whole thing. you just don't get it, that those basics are totally irrelevant to the issue of "what is going on" when they don't fit.

and the supposedly refuted earlier experiments, well, Michelson-Morley's famous test was with the same inadequate stuff as Sagnac, who changed the direction of measurement, and another M-M experiment was less conclusive.

And it MODERN experiments with better equipment that are at issue now. Cold fusion or whatever it is is getting more and more respectable looking. google it, you will find some surprising elements taking an interest.

Christine, learn to walk before you try to run or you will trip yourself up (again!) Can you solve an elementary differential equation? Do you know what a differential equation is? Could you recognise and solve the equation of simple harmonic motion, which is about the simplest in physics? If not, you have several years of work ahead of you before you "know the basics".

standard electricity and magnetism as supposedly proving theosophical points in the 1800s so what?) got results using platinum coated expensive lab equipment. when he used cheaper stuff, it didn't work.

You really don't know what you are talking about most of the time but you want others to think you are intelligent. You are like the individual who was told to file a huge amount of research. He didn't know what he was dealing with and so just threw everything into files labeled miscellaneous.

Christine, cold fusion is looking less and less respectable. In 1989 I was willing to believe it, but the claims of Fleischmann and Pons were never replicated and it has been all downhill from there. If you believe that Andrea Rossi has cracked it in its latest form, good luck to you. I don't. After a while you get to recognise patterns quite quickly.

"stuff" okay, you got me on using it too much. But it isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about but because it is too much, well, er, STUFF to explain in detail without being a real blog hog.

"stuff" is a word the meaning of which depends on context. nonsensical stuff in a cult context would be a paragraph full of scientology or whatever crazy teachings. in another context, it is shorthand for things in that context.

Christine, you are a blog hog. I don't know how you could be more of a blog hog than you already are.

You give boring rationalizations for your use of the word "stuff" when in reality it just is a fill in the blank word you use.

You could be ignored in most circumstances, but around this blog you are dangerous Where information about the New Age movement is needed to help others protect themselves, you are the equivalent of someone who says, "Trust me there's no poison around here. Have some of this golden liquid I'm sharing with you."

“Stuff” is a 16 minute soul/jazz piece on Miles Davis’ transitionary 1968 release Miles in the Sky, in which the fantastic acoustic bass player Ron Carter substitutes his usual instrument for a Fender bass, laying down a mean Motown groove, while Herbie Hancock makes his debut on the Fender Rhodes electric piano.

Oh, sorry; wrong forum. Back to our irregularly scheduled program Christine - wait wasn’t that a movie in which an auto(mobile) had a mind of its own?

George Carlin did a comedy routine about the word "stuff", and when he first performed it (on an LP I think), it was family-friendly. I was going try and find a youtube video of it, but unfortunately, his stuff on youtube isn't family-friendly.

It was pretty funny originally though. Funny how stuff changes over time.

Craig, oh I do wish I had a record player again. I have some wonderful jazz records including some Miles Davis ones. Those were the days when music was more than noisy sound. It's been a while since I heard anyone refer to Miles.

Christine, what drives your constant urge to post? I bet if we actually met you in person, you would be the one person perpetually,continually interrupting,any and all conversation,like you do here....a serial interrupter.(hovering over this blog morning noon and night). Very starved for attention or something so something is wrong with this picture and you make me actually concerned for you.

I actually remember the George Carlin routine on 'stuff', though only vaguely.

As a person who has (1) only come to the Christian faith recently (13 years), and (2) spent his entire life enamoured with all types of music, I know much more about music than New Age or even Christianity, I say to my shame. And for this reason, I have friends who are constantly trying to stump me on trivia (including an unsuccessful attempt by a client - this time it was in reference to a David Bowie tune). However, I'm sure in no time our Christine will know everything about "the Prince of Darkness" - Miles Davis - and will enlighten us.

Well, if nothing else, I was inspired to play all 16 minutes of Miles' "Stuff" - on my turntable.

about LENR story, it seems someone read only wikipedi to have an opinion.Fleischmann&pons was replicated exacly by Miles and later by longchampt in CEA (france nuke labs). It was replicated hundred of times with less similarities, and a thousand of experiements show various sign of nuclear reaction, anomalous heat, tritiupm, helium4, neutrons, gamma, transmutations.

of course since the lords of science decided in 6 week, whelped by 3 incompetent teamps, including one caught in fudging the result by their internal editor, that LENr did not exist (and took champain afterward), the lazy mind, the ambitious researchers, the media, the editors, refuse to allow publishing...

anyway, that is over and few companies interest more by aplication than to publish in Nature and get a Nobel are working on industrial reactors...

I've made an executive summary for beginners.http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/

read thomas kuhn presentation, my article on the LENr evidences, and the other papers linked (including on in naturwissenschaften)...

"about LENR story, it seems someone read only wikipedi to have an opinion."

Alain, if you are referring to me then I wrote and published a popular-level article on the subject once the 1989 furore had died down, read the original research papers at the time, read the books by Frank Close (like me, a professional research physicist with a doctorate) and Gary Taubes, and persisted until I understood the claims in detail. To verify the claim you need to see three things: a neutron spectrum at the right energy, heat, and the presence of nuclear isotopes not present beforehand. To my knowledge nobody has reproducibly got all three at the same time. Collaborative experiments are needed because neutron experts, nuclear experts and electrochemical cell experts are distinct; essentially nobody has research-level expertise in all three. Because of that it is not unusual for researchers to get two of the three and then claim a false positive. (Some people detect the right isotopes but fail to check that they weren't present beforehand.) There have now been so many flawed claims that my attitude is "I'll believe it when I see it". There is HUGE motivation to generate power by cold fusion if it is possible, so I simply don't believe the conspiracy theories that it is being stomped on by "the Establishment". And nowadays anybody who believes they have cracked it would not try to publish ahead of making a working prototype, so I don't believe the closed-minded-journal-editors scenario.

You claim cold fusion? Go ahead - make my day! I would be delighted to be wrong.

I follow the story sine 1993, and I agree that nobody found gamma, neutron , proportional to the heat as it happen in hot fusion.the error is to imagine that it happen in a metallic lattice like in free space.like applying aerodynamic to moles.

the arguments of taubes are sign of incompetence because he mix his assumption with rule of nature...

when people show him birds he simply dismiss them because thet is no bullshit falling, and because he knows cows don't flay. and like you he is right, LENr is not free space fusion, and cows don't fly.

today the only proportinality whi happen is He4 and heat in PdD systems.

Report 41 of ENEA tried to publish that result in Nature who refused because no room (for proving cold fusion)...more than 40 other magazine found stupid excuse like nothing can be hotter than 100C in water (disproving what any professional diver now when melding pipes underwater)... they jsust prove that whetever good is your article, and serious you are, it is nearly impossible to publish in those science comics.

note that it tooks time for me to realize how far the corruption of science have gone, since basically I'm very mainstream and not fan of conspiracy.just read the wikipedia (rejected) article which gather all the anti-science around that story:http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

moreover the behavior of the scientific community against the dissenters was terribel. putting hors manure in the mailbox is not serious... and 3 inquiry to try to find a misconduct is harassment...

It seems from thomas kuhn work and nassim nicholas taleb work, that it is not a conspiracy but a usual behavior.

hope this helps, but I know that transition are slow and painful.anyway when in few years it will be in wall-street journal , it will help.

anyway you can wait for it to happen, and enjoy... or help to make it happen earlier, and most of all not to be blocked by politician who want to protect lobbies.

if you want to participate, have to read much, ... the domain is not well organized.

for taubes argument, yeong e kim told it like a quantum physicist :"I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature."

Something very drastic has to happen to get two positively charged atomic nuclei close enough, against their mutual electrostatic repulsion, for them to fuse. (For this process to give off energy they should be light nuclei, of course.) Hot fusion does this by getting them moving fast enough for them to approach really close in head-on collisions; high temperature = fast motion. (I expect you know this, but I'm explaining for other readers.)

I accept that physical effects can be observed in advance of their explanation, but have you an explanation of how nuclei in solids at lab temperature can approach each other close enough to fuse despite their mutual electrostatic repulsion? If you calculate the energy needed per nuclear pair and compare it to the energetics of solid state processes, the former is orders of magnitude larger, and that's why I am skeptical. As for Kuhn's exposition of paradigm shifts, for every successful paradigm shift there are dozens of failed ones that turned out not to match experimental data.

I do not put any weight on grumbling about journal editors and referees being closed-minded. Anybody serious would nowadays begin by making a working prototype that they freely allow others to observe. It is interesting that nobody has done this. I repeat: Good luck, and I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

May I inquire what your qualifications are? I recognise that this question is a little cheeky given that I am remaining anonymous, so that you may not wish to answer, but that is because of factors relating to this particular blog - I contribute to some science blogs under my own name.

I'm also surprized, but the experiments let no doubt (whatever fairy tales the illuminated skeptic says).

Today no theory works well, but there are two generic mechanism propose, screening and coherence, probably both. cogherence is not possible in a plasma which explain why plasma physicist imagined it was impossible.

Not undesrtanding something is not a reason not to accept numerous coherent experiments...However what Thomas Kuhn explain in "structure of scientific revolution" is that this happen always so.

Once a domain is working in "Normal Science" mode, anomalies are only accepted when there is a theory which can replace the previous. whatever are the evidence.

a tragedy, but an episode in a series of tragedies.note that LENr scientist are nobeter, they ridiculed Miley, Pianteli, Focardi when they claimed Hi+H reaction was working, because their theories were assuming only D was reactivehttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?822-Miley-8W-for-100sec-how-LENR-community-ridiculed-NiH

it is a rule of science.

however many stupidities, without evidence, can be accepted if they match the current paradigm. I see many in the news today, which make me so sad when LENR is ridiculed.

some years back, a couple of scientists working on cold fusion or LENR or whatever you want to call it, were killed in an explosion. The official statement (this may have been SRI I don't remember, but it was shortly after Pons and Fleischman did their work) was that this was not caused by cold fusion going hot so to speak, but by "steam" overpressuring and rupturing the vessel.

er, where did all that heat and pressure come from? somehow that cold fusion device ran a little stronger than was expected.

I don't believe that either screening or coherence can do it; screening involves electrons and the point is to get nuclei together without any electrons in between. As for coherence, if this phenomenon involves electrons as well as the nuclei - as a quick google suggests - then the same criticism applies.

Yes, I am willing to accept the reality of effects in advance of their explanation, but the research community needs to see an experiment producing the right neutron spectrum, plenty of excess heat, and nuclear isotopes that are demonstrably the product of a fusion reaction, ie that weren't in the mix before - and we need to see all of those things at the same time. It is the failure to achieve this that caused the mainstream physics community - which was entirely willing to believe in cold fusion in 1989 - to become skeptical. 24 years on, success is still awaited. These criteria can, of course, be ignored if somebody turns up with a working prototype that they allow scientists to inspect. Again, we await. Meanwhile there have been many attempts that have failed.

Personally, I give it such a low chance of success in view of the size of the Coulomb barrier and the 20-year track record of failure that I prefer to spend my time on other projects. I believe you would do better to get on with the laboratory work than invoke Kuhn in an attempt to make your ranting against the scientific community respectable. In all such experiments I wish you well.

Christine, you start by putting quite a lot of energy into a cold fusion cell, in the hope of starting a nuclear reaction and getting more out. That energy input is quite enough by itself to cause a nasty little explosion if the cell fails catastrophically. Can you find a statement by the lead scientist in that project, Mike McKubre, claiming that the explosion was due to cold fusion?

So, comments made on a blog are to be considered gifts. I find that an interesting concept. Are we expected to send thank you notes? Are there websites where we can find free thank you notes? Does Hallmark have a paid site? Is there a way to return to sender if we are sent gifts that we don't want? Please someone, explain this new concept and tell me if it a universal movement.

Christine, you don't need to thank me for this gift. I'll wait until we can get all the details straightened out before I give and get lots of thanks.

look, idiot, that wasn't a comment that was a link to music you or someone said they wanted to hear. the link was a gift. if that person was you, "you're welcome." if not, shut up and stop preening about how wonderful you are by implication. you are really looking more and more ridiculous and pathetic.

It seems the explosion at SRI you refer too was caused by hydrogen. They make a serie of mistakes and the safety falve dysfunctioned... the inquiry is quite clear and it is hydrogen explosion.

no conspiracy needed. bad safety.

More interesting JP Biberian have mad a closed cell experiment and it melted/exploded, producing much more energy that the tiny quantity of hydrogen inside can explain.

about question whether it is screening or coherence, note that hot and cold superconduction are collective behavior. Semiconductors are caused by lattice effect.Nobody, even physicist, can rule-out something in lattice, as long as conservation of mass, energy, entropy, charge, impulsion are respected.

see hox Celani missed the nobel price because his findings were heretic, breaking BCS theory.http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejected

hopefully levitation of superconductors can be undersood by incompetent people, thus nobody can hide behind cryptic hypothesis of never seen artifact and alien conspiracies.

our modern science is too much focused on theory.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb in AntiFragile, section "lecturing birds to fly" and "history being rewritten by the losers" explain how it is common and toxic.

common and toxic, that is what describe the treatment of cold fusion.

The people who innovate are engineers, entrepreneurs, garage inventors, desperate people, and they go with LENR.

anyway history is rewritten and this is why you don't know it.

read the real story of Wright brothershttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1008-Wright-Brother-story-It-remind-me-something

note that the press release which explain the discover of Cold Fusion by MIT/caltech/harwell is already writtenhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2043-How-MIT-discovered-LENR-in-2015-History-written-by-the-losers

This was however EXPLICITLY a cold fusion experiment, reported in the newspaper probably the SF Chronicle, that the accident occurred in context of which. but it was dismissed as steam explosion during the experiment.

Cold fusion have evolved sine 1989.At the beginning for lab work they worked at few watt of electricity and the anomalous heat was 10-20%...however at those small power the precision of the calorimeter was very high, and the signal over uncertainty let no doubt it was real...(by the way the reference experiments of MIT, Harwell, caltech were so badly done that it is a shame compared to Miley, F&P89 and Longchampt97).

Mizuno produced more heat, but also it was harder to measure heat, and electroded were destroyed quickly...

the excuse of the tea kettle is not a scientist excuse.many critics against LENR are an insult to science, and more used to manipulate the untrained minds.

anyway recently the 3rd party report of defkalion, rossi, and Brilouin are above the kW level...this is what pushed the industrialist to invest.

note that many corps worked on LENR after ERAB panel blackout, and some like Toyota, Mitsubishi continued.NASA rediscovered it's own result in 2008 and support LENR today. US Navy Spawar worked on it until it get on the media an they had to be shutdown. ENEA don't have stopped working on it, probably because Italy have good success because of an Italian palladium providers who had the good impurities.Shell and Amocco have funded LENR research, and have found good scientific result, but no industrial grade result...

if the corps and the army stopped working on LENR it was not because it was not real, but it seems too hard to make industrial.

you seems to have stopped time in 1989, like wikipedia.

you are ill-informed (I'l blame wikipravda), and victim of the planet-wide manipulation by the academics... not the first time, not the last, and not even secret.it is not a conspiracy, but a usual groupthink...

only puny secrets need keeping, great secrets are hidden by public incredulity.

Christine - yes you said it was a steam explosion (although it was actually a hydrogen explosion according to Alain), but you were clearly hinting at 2.57pm that energy from cold fusion (which is the key point) was responsible for the pressure buildup, were you not? Whereas I say that the energy input to the cell was responsible for the buildup. You are trying to deflect attention away from your error.

Alain - Regarding Celani, I do not understand your comment that his finding of high-temperature superconductivity was rejected because of its incompatibility with BCS theory. The same would apply to the experimental findings of Bednorz and Muller - superconductivity at temperatures way above what BCS can predict - yet they got published (and enNobelled). So you cannot use this episode as fuel for a rant against the scientific establishment on the grounds that they don't publish anything inconsistent with prevailing theory. In publishing Bednorz and Muller's findings they did exactly that. And we still don't have a proven theory of hi-T superconductivity today. As for cold fusion, that was not rejected out of hand either; the physics community was sufficiently interested in it in 1989 to galvanise itself and do multiple experimental tests. It is on the basis of those tests that skepticism hardened. OK, that work might have missed some regions of parameter space, but it is now up to cold fusion proponents to make the case experimentally rather than grumble about conspiracies of funding bodies and editors. In all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck with that.

this is an open forum, we all read each other's mail here and respond if we please whether invited to or not. Nothing is private here, or in any open forum. Someone expressed a desire to hear the music, I thought I would do them a favor. Apparently they had the problem of having records but no record player.

what kind of human being are you that you can't comprehend simple charity?

And why do you flaunt your ignorance of open forum norms and ask stupid questions that only show your own ignorance of any kind of human nature but the most venal to the point of social and emotional retardation?

I suppose you are one of those people who if someone stepped in to stop someone from bleeding to death would ask them, "why did you involve yourself?" my answer to such a person would be, "why did you not?" Granted this is not the same situation. But the spectacle you make suggests all kinds of nasty possibilities about you.

Gee Christine, I never thought of you as Lady Bountiful, doing charity work and giving gifts to those who aren't as aware of the world as you are. Gosh. Thank you so very much for your charitable work.

And you leave us nothing to doubt about how meddlesome (and self-righteous) you are--you cannot equate a good samaritan act and your trifles nonstop with this blog as the same thing. (looks what that reveals about you to put those two thoughts together--a flaming narcissist). Yes we know a lot about you-you never shutup so we can even wonder otherwise.

what is funny is to hear good people defend those behaviors and find excuses or reduce the facts...

that is how history is rewritten.

the problem of cold fusion is that to be convinced yo need to understand calorimetry, istotopic measurement, and people in the street cannot...so the scientist can tell fairy tales to deny the facts...

with hot superconduction or 5 symmetry crystal it is harder. when photo ar public you have to surrender.

the problem also with cold fusion is that after 6 week of controversy there was a fatwa of the Ulemah of science against cold fusion, and all dissenters have been extensively bullyied to prevent others to dissent.

see how bockris was treatedhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1634-John-bockris-Example-of-Bullying-against-leading-electrochemist-who-dissent

whatever he said, that is not a way to treat someone, especially a leading electro-chemist of his time.

just the way this happen should raise a red flag 6 week to close a controversy should raise a red flag

Alain, cold fusion was not rejected out of hand. The physics community was sufficiently interested in it in 1989 to do multiple experimental tests. It is on the basis of those tests that skepticism hardened. OK, that work missed some regions of parameter space, but it is now up to cold fusion proponents to make the case experimentally. If you believe this has already been done but scientific journals refuse to carry it then construct a working prototype. THAT would gain you (or whoever) instant worldwide fame and a Nobel Prize. All you are doing here is grumbling about the scientific establishment, and it doesn't change a single mind, does it? A working prototype would - Physicist

Physicist,I have been seeing the term "Kinetic Weapons" being used, lately by our head military officer Dempsey on possibly using such weapons in the Syria conflict. I have also seen Israel using the same term. The only thing I see defining what they are is depleted uranium weapons. I am not sure what that means by depleted uranium. Are you familiar with this?

since you got no answer so far, here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardmentthey wouldn't have to be depleted uranium, but they probably would be. the damage is by impact alone, at very high speed. Classic idea is from a space platform, but it wouldn't require that if the boost was strong enough.

Just for your information here, the baby boy born to Catherine and William on 22/7 has a very interesting timing. His grandmother, Princess Diana was killed on 31/8/1997. If you count 777 weeks forward you come to 22/7/2012, exactly one year to the day of his birth on 22/7/2013. That is 777 weeks + 3+3+3+3 months. Also this last year being counted from a 7 to a 7 (July). Also adding the digits of the dates descibing this last year we get 2+2+7+2+1+2 = 16 and 2+2+7+2+1+3 = 17 and so, 16 + 17 = 33.P.

Cold fusion was decared heretic in 6 week, and the gang of hot fusion created ERAB to be sure it won't survive.The arguments are pure bullshit for a scientist. Thet there is no theory, is not an argument.That it produce few heat is not scientific. that you claim internationa fraud is conspiracy theory.The worst is that in fact the people who settled the official science against cold fusion are not numerous, a handful of middleaged powerfull lords of science, controlling budget and consensus. Taubes, Huizenga and few others...

Of course since there was hope of industrial results and positive results, it continued for some time. but the control of budgets by the lords of science, the lack of useful results, the nearly impossibility to publish even good results in high impact magazine, the terror against dissenters, the career of even top-scientits ruined , succedd in convincing most people having a career to avoid that domain...

note that I see few similar stories our of LENR.

that way to close a controversy from a few extremists, then by terror through media, funding, politics, nobel, to convince a community to accept a science as settledis a rule, not an exception...

strangely one such started at the same period. In both case you find big buck to protect, models and theory which contradict some facts, and good morality as excuse for bullying.

nb: about uranium conspiracy, ... hum... not enough replication ;-)... Many people who support any conspiracy hypothesis support LENR too... easy bet , but not reason to believe the rest. Have to investigate. I did not.

Christine is correct, kinetic weapons depend purely on the impact to render the target inoperative. A bullet is a kinetic weapon. Depleted uranium is used in larger ones simply because it is a very dense material, so for a given speed it has it has more disruptive effect.

You wrote "Th[a]t there is no theory, is not an argument." Why are you repeating this? I am the only person in dialogue with you here and I said the same myself above: "Yes, I am willing to accept the reality of effects in advance of their explanation..." The spectacle of you punching at air is rather strange.

Yes, it is possible that *some* journal editors have given up on cold fusion. But not all. And if cold fusion is real then, as I said, it should not be too hard to produce a working prototype and (after patenting it) plans that enable others to reproduce it. Nobody has done this yet. Let those who believe it is not possible, work on something else and not scoff; let those who think it is possible, stop grumbling and work on it. As for funding, the whole point of cold fusion is that if it works it is cheap apparatus. Cold fusion advocates would do well to stop regarding themselves as scientists entitled to public money, and start regarding themselves as inventors trying to verify and commercialise a process.

"The arguments are pure bullshit for a scientist."

Not bullshit at all. The argument, that there is no low-temperature mechanism by which two positively charged atomic nuclei can overcome their mutual electrostatic repulsion and approach sufficiently close to fuse, is strong. Look at the energy required and ask where it might come from at low temperatures. Now, it is not possible to prove a negative and something might have been missed, which is why I support continuing experiment. But those who do such experiments should man up and stop grumbling about conspiracy. Everybody would love cold fusion to work, so there is no conspiracy. There is some skepticism, in view of the good experiments that failed to find cold fusion in 1989 - what matter that they took 6 weeks? - but a working prototype would dispel skepticism a lot faster than that.

Self-pity and anger never changed anybody's mind. I think that you are really talking to yourself, not me. What is your scientific background, please?

Once again, I wish you well in any experimental search for cold fusion. I am going on vacation this coming week and look forward to seeing how this discussion has developed on my return.

If you accept fact without theory, you are above average. probably not a physicist.The consensus is that having no theory is an argument. happy you are not in.

anyway like Robert Duncan you will have to see things with your own eyes to accept that the majority, and the authorities are wrong. they they have been manipulated by their laziness, cowardliness, and trust.

coulomb barrier cannot be overcome... it is seduced.

I have a metaphore (true story, japanese test).

in a japanese kindergarten they align each kid in front of a bag of sand of 40kg . and ask them to move it to the other side of the room.

clearly the kids cannot move the bag.

however some kids succeed the test, and that they succeed show they have understood a great lesson of life.

same for coulomb barrier.

by the way reading the few leading LENR theories may give you many alternative ideas of how to solve the sand-bag problem.

about experiments, there are many of various kind, and for example the recent ENEA results clearly explain why some experiments succeed or fail...

the problem is that few people know how developped is the LENr science and knowledge.Wikipedia had to ban the only archive of LENR papers to avoid the truth. because if they allowed LENR-CANR.org archive, people wuld understand.

Like for LENR in academics, on wikipravda very few people control the truth and bully the dissenters (like abd ul rahman lomax who have detaile their attorney techniques).It is not a conspiracy, and not for money... just Taliban mind.

"The argument, that there is no low-temperature mechanism by which two positively charged atomic nuclei can overcome their mutual electrostatic repulsion"

you mean there is no KNOWN low temp mechanism etc.electrostatic may be the key issue here, if something changed the charge, then.....

I sort of agree, not a conspiracy in the normal sense of the word....more like shared sense of security in the standard picture and shared insecurity in something that seems to violate that, ergo shared response. Once that response is made by people one's credibility ergo career ergo money also ego about status in one's reference group, the rest go along.

As a casual observer of the whole cold fusion discussion here, I think what disturbs me about the ones who "believe in it" is this:

When you start with a belief that something must be true, before it has been proven using acceptable methods of proof, you are opening yourself up to deception.

For example, I think it is safe to say that there is a widespread, worldwide belief in extraterrestrial alien life. It hasn't been "proven" in any kind of scientific way that aliens really exist, to the point where it is a fact that is accepted at the same level as, say, the fact that the moon exists.

When you start with the belief that there must be aliens, and are content to wait until science "catches up" with what you "know" to be true, you can end up believing some pretty strange (and untrue) things - that aliens "seeded" the Earth long, long ago, thus starting the human race; that aliens are here to help us with our next "evolutionary leap forward"; that there is a giant conspiracy to keep the "truth" about alien existence from the world at large; etc.

This is what makes it so hard to discuss anything involving conspiracies with most people. The conspiracy, in their minds, exists, so any proof saying otherwise must have some flaw in it. It really is a mindset that one can get into that makes a person almost unteachable. It is a mindset that says "What I believe is true, and nothing can show me otherwise."

From a Christian point of view, to get into an "unteachable" mindset is a dangerous place to be. How else are we to become more like Christ, unless we are always open to being taught new truths about Him from the Word? We should be constantly letting the Word change our minds and our hearts to be more like the mind and heart of Christ. That often means laying something aside that we thought to be true, but that was shown to us by the Holy Spirit to be only partially true or even false. It is not easy to do that. Pride often gets in the way.

I have given an examinable lecture course in an area of physical science at the University of Cambridge (UK), published in Phys Rev, and pursued postdoctoral research in theoretical physics at two other universities. When you say I am probably not a physicist, what do you mean? Are YOU a physicist by the criteria you have in mind?

About Me

As an active Michigan lawyer, I practice my profession primarily in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties of Michigan, USA (248-253-0333). Sometimes I do work in my old "stomping grounds" of our State Capitol, Lansing, Michigan on administrative, state law related matters, as well. I've enjoyed active and stimulating careers in government, politics, law and as a published and translated author. In the past, I have worked for the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan State Senate, and the City of Highland Park, Michigan. I'm the author of the first major critical book about the New Age Movement, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism (1983); A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah (1986). Currently, I'm completing a volume about Javier Solana, the Barcelona Process, Israel and the European Union. Email me cumbey@gmail.com.